There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

cygnus ,
@cygnus@lemmy.ca avatar

LLMs will not give us AGI. This is obvious to anyone who knows how they work.

doodledup ,

Maybe it can. If you find a way to port everything to text by hooking in different models, the LLM might be able to reason about everything you throw at it. Who even defines how AGI should be implemented?

mke ,

Except LLMs don’t actually have real reasoning capacity. Hooking in different models that can translate more of the world to text could give the LLM a broader domain, but not an entirely new ability beyond its architecture. That might make it more convincing, but it would still fail in the same ways as it currently does.

doodledup ,

You’re doing reasoning based on chemical reactions. Who says it can’t do reasoning based on text? Who says it’s not doing that already in some capacity? Can you prove that?

MentalEdge ,
@MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz avatar

Is language conscious? Is it possible to “encode” human thinking into the media we produce?

Humans certainly “decode” ideas, knowledge, trains of logic and more from media, but does that mean the media contains the components of consciousness?

Is it possible to produce a machine that “decodes” not the content of media, but the process through which it was produced? Does media contain the latter in the first place?

How can you tell the difference if it does?

The more I learn about how modern machine learning actually works, the more certain I become that even if having a machine “decode” human media is the path to AGI, LLMs ain’t it.

It just doesn’t work in a way that would allow for a mind to arise.

kia ,

The LLM is just trying to produce output text that resembles the patterns it saw in the training set. There’s no “reasoning” involved.

doodledup , (edited )

You’re doing that too from day one you were born.

Besides, aren’t humans thinking in words too?

Why is it impossible to build a text-based AGI model? Maybe there can be reasoning in between word predictions. Maybe reasoning is just a fancy term for statistics? Maybe floating-point rounding errors are sufficient for making it more than a mere token prediction model.

anarchrist ,

LLMs do not reason, they probabilistically determine the next word based on the words you prompt it with. The most perfect implementation of “AI” was the T9 predictive text system for dumb phones cmv.

doodledup ,

And you’re just a fancy electro-chemical reaction.

Who says that an LLM with complete access to the sensory world could not pass the Turing Test?

MentalEdge ,
@MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz avatar

And to have conversation, behind the scenes, each prompt gets the entire conversation so far tacked on.

The model itself is static, it doesn’t work like a brain that changes in response to stimulus, or form memories.

To converse about something, the entirety of an exchange is fed back into the model all over again each time it needs to produce a response. In fact, this cab happen several times over for each word in a response.

It’s basically an attempt at duct-taping the ability to form memories onto an otherwise static system. It works, but I don’t see how that way of doing it could ever land LLMs in the land of real consciousness.

It basically means these models “think” in frames, but each frame gets exponentially heavier to process, as it has to ingest every frame that came before.

Rhaedas ,

LLMs alone won't. Experts in the field seem to have different opinions on if they will help get us there. What is concerning to me is that the issues and dangers of AGI also exist with advanced LLM models, and that research is being shelved because it gets in the way of profit. Maybe we'll never be able to get to AGI, but we sure better hope if we do we get it right the first time. How's that been going with the more primitive LLMs?

Do we even know what the "right" AGI would be? We're treading in dangerous waters.

mozz , (edited )
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

I just tried Claude after having some issues with using GPT on Firefox that OpenAI’s support was unable to resolve other than some “it’s all your fault, clear your cookies” bullet points.

I only tried Claude a little bit so far, but it seems way better.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •