I’ve been saying this for about a year since seeing the Othello GPT research, but it’s nice to see more minds changing as the research builds up.

Edit: Because people aren’t actually reading and just commenting based on the headline, a relevant part of the article:

New research may have intimations of an answer. A theory developed by Sanjeev Arora of Princeton University and Anirudh Goyal, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, suggests that the largest of today’s LLMs are not stochastic parrots. The authors argue that as these models get bigger and are trained on more data, they improve on individual language-related abilities and also develop new ones by combining skills in a manner that hints at understanding — combinations that were unlikely to exist in the training data.

This theoretical approach, which provides a mathematically provable argument for how and why an LLM can develop so many abilities, has convinced experts like Hinton, and others. And when Arora and his team tested some of its predictions, they found that these models behaved almost exactly as expected. From all accounts, they’ve made a strong case that the largest LLMs are not just parroting what they’ve seen before.

“[They] cannot be just mimicking what has been seen in the training data,” said Sébastien Bubeck, a mathematician and computer scientist at Microsoft Research who was not part of the work. “That’s the basic insight.”

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’d take a step farther back and say the argument hinges on whether “consciousness” is even really a thing, or if we’re “faking” it to each other and to ourselves as well. We still don’t have a particularly good way of measuring human consciousness, let alone determining whether AIs have it too.

    • Redacted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      …or even if consciousness is an emergent property of interactions between certain arrangements of matter.

      It’s still a mystery which I don’t think can be reduced to weighted values of a network.

      • automattable@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is a really interesting train of thought!

        I don’t mean to belittle the actual, real questions here, but I can’t shake the hilarious image of 2 dudes sitting around in a basement, stoned out of their minds getting “deep.”

        Bro! What if consciousness isn’t real, and we’re just faking it

        brooooooo