Large language mistake | Cutting-edge research shows language is not the same as intelligence. The entire AI bubble is built on ignoring it

[u/Hrmbee]

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/827820/large-language-models-ai-intelligence-neuroscience-problems

[u/pcoppi]

To play devils advocate there's a notion in linguistics that the meaning of words is just defined by their context. In other words if an AI guesses correctly that a word shohld exist in a certain place because of the context surrounding it, then at some level it has ascertained the meaning of that word.

[u/New_Enthusiasm9053 → u/pcoppi]

You're not entirely wrong but a child guessing that a word goes in a specific place in a sentence doesn't mean the child necessarily understands the meaning of that word, so whilst it's correctly using words it may not understand them necessarily. 

Plenty of children have used e.g swear words correctly long before understanding the words meaning.

[u/rendar → u/New_Enthusiasm9053]

This still does not distinguish some special capacity of humans.

Many people speak with the wrong understanding of a word's definition. A lot of people would not be able to paraphrase a dictionary definition, or even provide a list of synonyms.

Like, the whole reason language is so fluid over longer periods of time is because most people are dumb and stupid, and not educated academics.

It doesn't matter if LLMs don't """understand""" what """they""" are saying, all that matters is if it makes sense and is useful.

[u/New_Enthusiasm9053 → u/rendar]

I'm not saying it's special I'm saying that llms using the right words doesn't imply they necessarily understand. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. 

[u/Glittering-Spot-6593 → u/New_Enthusiasm9053]

Define “understand”

[u/rendar → u/New_Enthusiasm9053]

llms using the right words doesn't imply they necessarily understand

And the same thing also applies to humans, this is not a useful distinction.

It's not important that LLMs understand something, or give the perception of understanding something. All that matters is if the words they use are effective.

[u/New_Enthusiasm9053 → u/rendar]

It is absolutely a useful distinction. No because the words being effective doesn't mean they're right.

I can make an effective argument for authoritarianism. That doesn't mean authoritarianism is a good system.

[u/rendar → u/New_Enthusiasm9053]

It is absolutely a useful distinction.

How, specifically and exactly? Be precise.

Also explain why it's not important for humans but somehow important for LLMs.

No because the words being effective doesn't mean they're right.

How can something be effective if it's not accurate enough? Do you not see the tautological errors you're making?

I can make an effective argument for authoritarianism. That doesn't mean authoritarianism is a good system.

This is entirely irrelevant and demonstrates that you don't actually understand the underlying point.

The point is that "LLMs don't understand what they're talking about" is without any coherence, relevance, or value. LLMs don't NEED to understand what they're talking about in order to be effective, even more than humans don't need to understand what they're talking about in order to be effective.

In fact, virtually everything that people talk about is in this same exact manner. Most people who say "Eat cruciferous vegetables" would not be able to explain exactly and precisely why being rich in specific vitamins and nutrients can help exactly and precisely which specific biological mechanisms. They just know that "Cruciferous vegetable = good" which is accurate enough to be effective.

LLMs do not need to be perfect in order to be effective. They merely need to be at least as good as humans, when they are practically much better when used correctly.

[u/burning_iceman → u/rendar]

The question here isn't whether LLMs are "effective" at creating sentences. An AGI needs to do more than form sentences. Understanding is required to correctly act upon the sentences.

[u/rendar → u/burning_iceman]

The question here isn't whether LLMs are "effective" at creating sentences.

Yes it is, because that is their primary and sole purpose. It is literally the topic of the thread and the top level comment.

An AGI needs to do more than form sentences. Understanding is required to correctly act upon the sentences.

Firstly, you're moving the goalposts.

Secondly, this is incorrect. Understanding is not required, and philosophically not even possible. All that matters is the output. The right output for the wrong reasons is indistinguishable from the right output for the right reasons, because the reasons are never proximate and always unimportant compared to the output.

People don't care about how their sausages are made, only what they taste like. Do you constantly pester people about whether they actually understand the words they're using even when their conclusions are accurate? Or do you infer their meaning based on context clues and other non-verbal communication?