Heard some people say that a so called “Human Zoo” is one of the best-case scenarios with pseudo-omniscient AI taking care of all of us. Supposedly that comes true, to what ends would humans continue to keep a population going, simply due to biological bias? You think humans would devolve in some way, or become intellectually atrophied?
LLMs don’t think my dude
Neither do most people I know
Why not? A sufficiently complex and powerful machine could simulate and mimic human brain functionality. Only difference is the change in medium where the “thinking” happens from grey matter to silicon.
Breeding faster horses didn’t make the steam engine. LLMs are only going to be LLMs at the end of the day, no matter how much they’re prompted.
I spotted a Doctorow reader in the wild!
Quick question who is doctorow and is it good?
Corey Doctorow is a writer who does SciFi and tech/privacy activism. He works with/for the EFF, and he’s anti AI, but in a fairly nuanced way. You’d have to read his stuff to get a sense of it. Very opinionated, very prolific. Fun to read.
I actually cheated and listened to him on a podcast :)
I count it! I really like his book Enshittification. Bought a copy for my boss. Possible career limiting move. Shrug
Incredibly based, godspeed
That’s just it, LLMs are not complex, although they might be “powerful” in the sense that we’ve thrown more processing power at them than any human endeavor in all of history.
To an LLM a word is a unique value. It sorts unique values based on probabilities of those words appearing in sequences based on sample data. It doesn’t know what red is. It doesn’t know what a dog is. These are just values to it no different than the words which come before or after.
When a human being, or an animal, encounter new stimulus in various forms and context they are able to study and understand it almost instantly. They’re able to solve a variation of a riddle they’ve never heard before, they’re able to learn new things.
LLMs cannot do that. LLMs have to be retrained with data in a very specific format from the start, in essence to be remade from nothing, every time new information is added. Furthermore, their statistical approach lacks any permanence in fact, it could give a right answer 7 out of 10 times and then still continue giving the wrong answer the other 3 times, because whether “red” or “dog” was the correct value is a matter of percentages and not any understanding or contextual awareness.
This is very philosophical, but what is understanding of something? Isn’t it just relationships between different concepts? LLM currently encode information similarly in their multidimensional vector space. Where a “dog” vector would be close to “animal” “pet” “breed” etc vectors and those in turn to other similar concepts and so on. How different is it from human way of understanding?
Sure, that is true right now. But in not-so-distant future, it is not unreasonable to assume AI would be able to improve itself without as much (or any) human intervention. For example it could streamline training, automatically collect new data from across the world in real time. Be able to access its own weights in the model, increase improvement efficiency possibly exponentially even.
Today it is a statistical model
Tomorrow it is a statistical model
Check out the OpenAI peer review article on “AI Scaling Laws”, although it had its math corrected by the staff of DeepMind later on it still more or less correctly predicted the performance of every model since and predicts that we’re hitting a hard limit soon as training approaches infinite but returns become smaller and smaller. If you plot the performance as per their charts then the limit after INFINITE training with INFINITE sample data and INFINITE power used then you get about 94% accuracy, which is still less than any one singular human’s capabilities. So why train it when you can just go and get a random human?
Clearly this approach doesn’t work.
You mentioned a theoretical model which adjusts its own weights? We call that self-sampling which leads to feedback loops and model collapse.
In my OP, I did not mean specifically some LLM, but a hypothetical, scalable-past-human-capabilities synthetic brain.
I would argue that a human brain is a statistical model. Complex, but in the end it’s a black box that takes in input from senses, and spits out output in form of interaction with environment. I’m not saying we and LLMs are in any way alike, or that AI is alive. But I do not agree with postulation that a true artificial thinking machine is impossible to build within next 1B years or however long Earth stays habitable for complex life.
You’d be wrong. Humans are a series of logic gates which don’t strictly compare values odds. We actually kind of suck at statistics.
That’s theoretically true, but that’s not what LLMs do. LLMs truly are just n-th level autocomplete. They aren’t simulating brain function. They’re just repeatedly outputting what ‘should’ be the next set of letters in the sequence.
And why do you think that human brains basic mechanics are not similarily simple? Intelligence is an emergent property of some physical system. There is no magic making biological cells fundamentally different than transistors in this sense. They may be built very differently, but both are still just physical devices.