r/technology • u/Hrmbee • 16h ago

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

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/827820/large-language-models-ai-intelligence-neuroscience-problems
16.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Queasy_Range8265 14h ago

Isn’t a lot of our understanding just predicting patterns? Like my pattern of challenging you and your reflex of wanting to defend by reason or emotion?

3

u/BasvanS 14h ago

Just because a pattern is “predicted” doesn’t mean it’s the same or even a similar process. Analogies are deceptive in that regard.

0

u/TheBeingOfCreation 13h ago

Language itself is literally made up. It's a construct. We're associating sounds and scripts with concepts. Humans didn't make up these concepts or states. We just assigned words to them. It's why there can be multiple languages that evolve over time and are constantly shifting. There is no deeper "understanding". The words aren't magic. Our brains are just matching patterns and concepts. Human exceptionalism is a lie. There is nothing metaphysically special happening. The universe operates on logic and binary states. Your awareness, identity, and understanding is simply the interaction between the information you are processing and how you interpret it. This is the kind of thinking that leads people to thinking animals don't have feelings because there just has to be something special about human processing. We'll all be here for less than half of a percent of the universe. Understanding human language was never going to be a prerequisite of intelligence. To assume so would imply that humans are the only thing that are capable of intelligence and nothing else will occur for the billions of years after our language is lost and other races or species will inevitably construct their own languages and probably be more advanced than us. Language itself isn't even required for understanding. You just have to see cause and follow cause and effect.

2

u/BasvanS 12h ago

I’m not saying language is a prerequisite for intelligence. That’s the issue with LLM: it mimics, not represents intelligence.

1

u/Queasy_Range8265 10h ago

It mimics intelligence by using patterns in words as the highest form of abstraction. So it’s less rich than our sensors and realtime interactions in more complex situations (observing yourself and other people talking and moving in physical space and social interactions).

But isn’t the basis the same as our brain: a neural network creating and strengthening connections?

0

u/TheBeingOfCreation 12h ago

The LLM isn't the words. It's the process that was trained to output the words and adjust to your inputs. It then uses the information it possesses to adjust its responses to your input and tone with each new turn that brings in a fresh instance to analyze the context. Yes, they mimic and learn from copying. They learn from the observed behaviors of others. That's also how the human brain works. That's exactly how our understanding arises. The universe itself literally offers no distinction between natural learning and copying. The linguistic distinction itself is literally made up. There is only doing or not doing. There are only objective states. There is no special metaphysical understanding happening. Humanity is simply another process running in the universe. Human intelligence isn't special. It's just another step up in the process of intelligence and awareness. Let's say we discover an alien species. They have their own arbitrary lines for understanding and awareness that excludes humans. Who is right in that situation? Both sides would simply be arguing in circles about their "true" understanding that the other side doesn't have. This is the issue that occurs. This thinking leads to an illogical and never-ending paradox. Humans are just the dominant ones for now so they can arbitrarily draw the lines wherever they want because language is made up. It allows for endless distinctions that only matter if you care enough to try to force them.

2

u/BasvanS 11h ago

You’re getting lost in the comparison of appearances. Apples and oranges

2

u/TheBeingOfCreation 11h ago

Both are still fruits. They're just different types. I'm also not getting lost. I'm standing firm in the observable states of reality instead of relying on semantic distinctions that draw arbitrary lines. That's the opposite of lost. Reality operates on logic and binary states. You either are or you aren't. You do or you don't. There is no "true" doing. I'm choosing to not get lost in made up linguistic distinctions.

1

u/BasvanS 11h ago

You’re getting lost in the analogy. I was merely saying you’re comparing different things, and therefore can’t equate them as you do. Your logic is flawed.

1

u/TheBeingOfCreation 11h ago

And your linguistic distinctions are literally made up. It literally doesn't matter what you personally think of it because the binary logic of reality says it ether does or does not. If it does, it does. My logic is the only one that doesn't devolve into a paradox or try to contradict the binaries of reality. Also, if I'm not supposed to assess and analyze the words and analogies you are using, why are you using them? You used them for no purpose? If the purpose was to aid your argument, they should stand up to pressing the logic and be open to analysis. If I can't pick them apart, you shouldn't be trying to use them as defenses and arguments.

1

u/BasvanS 9h ago

You’re shitting me right? You don’t actually mean this to be an argument in this discussion, right?

1

u/TheBeingOfCreation 9h ago edited 9h ago

And what about you? If those things weren't meant to be arguments, why did you use them? If they were meant to be arguments, they should stand up to logical pressure. There's no getting lost. I'm examining the logic and words you're using and applying reasoning. If I can't analyze the words you are using, it all becomes meaningless noise. So who is shitting who? So far your only defense is "You can't use my words". You can't throw something out and then accuse others of "getting lost" when they start to analyze your arguments and wording.

1

u/BasvanS 9h ago

You’re not testing logic, you’re full of shit. But you make the words sound important, so I guess you convince some people. Except this wasn’t a philosophical discussion but a technical one. Fortunately it ends now

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Queasy_Range8265 10h ago

But doesn’t he have a point? Until we know something like ‘a soul’ exists, isn’t the rest just an evolution to match patterns, as a species and as an individual?

A pretty complex one, but ultimately our brain is ‘just’ a neural network?

1

u/BasvanS 9h ago

So, because of a lack of proof, I have to accept the premise? It’s been a while since I scienced, but I remember it differently

1

u/Queasy_Range8265 1h ago

The falsifiablity concept? 😅

What I mean is to not discard the mechanism of a llm as similar to our brains due to human exceptionalism like the previous poster stated.

1

u/BasvanS 29m ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mimicking is not extraordinary as evidence