Researchers at Apple have come out with a new paper showing that large language models can’t reason — they’re just pattern-matching machines. [arXiv, PDF] This shouldn’t be news to anyone here. We …
Did someone not know this like, pretty much from day one?
Not the idiot executives that blew all their budget on AI and made up for it with mass layoffs - the people interested in it. Was that not clear that there was no “reasoning” going on?
there’s a lot of people (especially here, but not only here) who have had the insight to see this being the case, but there’s also been a lot of boosters and promptfondlers (ie. people with a vested interest) putting out claims that their precious word vomit machines are actually thinking
so while this may confirm a known doubt, rigorous scientific testing (and disproving) of the claims is nonetheless a good thing
No they do not im afraid, hell I didnt even know that even ELIZA caused people to think it could reason (and this worried the creator) until a few years ago.
Well, two responses I have seen to the claim that LLMs are not reasoning are:
we are all just stochastic parrots lmao
maybe intelligence is an emergent ability that will show up eventually (disregard the inability to falsify this and the categorical nonsense that is our definition of “emergent”).
So I think this research is useful as a response to these, although I think “fuck off, promptfondler” is pretty good too.
No, there’s an actual paper where that term originated that goes into great deal explaining what it means and what it applies to. It answers those questions and addresses potential objections people might respond with.
There’s no need for–and, frankly, nothing interesting about–“but, what is truth, really?” vibes-based takes on the term.
A lot of people still don’t, from what I can gather from some of the comments on “AI” topics. Especially the ones that skew the other way with its “AI” hysteria is often an invite from people who know fuck all about how the tech works. “Nudifier” or otherwise generative images or explicit chats with bots that portray real or underage people being the most common topics that attract emotionally loaded but highly uninformed demands and outrage. Frankly, the whole “AI” topic in the media is so massively overblown on both fronts, but I guess it is good for traffic and nuance is dead anyway.
Indeed, although every one of us who have seen a tech hype train once or twice expected nothing less.
PDAs? Quantum computing. Touch screens. Siri. Cortana. Micropayments. Apps. Synergy of desktop and mobile.
From the outset this went from “hey that’s kind of neat” to quite possibly toppling some giants of tech in a flash. Now all we have to do is wait for the boards to give huge payouts to the pinheads that drove this shitwagon in here and we can get back to doing cool things without some imaginary fantasy stapled on to it at the explicit instruction of marketing and channel sales.
And i still remember how media outlets hyped up second life, forgot about it and a few months later discovered it again and more hype started. It was fun.
Of course, of course. At the time though, it was expected that this would change the face of computing - no more keyboards! No more mice! No, this is more like Star Trek where you glance down at some geometric assemblage of colored shapes and tap several in random succession to immediately bring up the data you were looking for.
Aren’t touch screens literally everywhere? What was the hype?
It’s always so baffling to me to learn about those things because I was way too young to actually experience any of the “hype” around most of those technologies. Touch screens are cool and they penetrated society so much there are at my grocery shop, what the fuck were they supposed to do if that’s not living up to the hype?
Did someone not know this like, pretty much from day one?
Not the idiot executives that blew all their budget on AI and made up for it with mass layoffs - the people interested in it. Was that not clear that there was no “reasoning” going on?
there’s a lot of people (especially here, but not only here) who have had the insight to see this being the case, but there’s also been a lot of boosters and promptfondlers (ie. people with a vested interest) putting out claims that their precious word vomit machines are actually thinking
so while this may confirm a known doubt, rigorous scientific testing (and disproving) of the claims is nonetheless a good thing
No they do not im afraid, hell I didnt even know that even ELIZA caused people to think it could reason (and this worried the creator) until a few years ago.
Well, two responses I have seen to the claim that LLMs are not reasoning are:
So I think this research is useful as a response to these, although I think “fuck off, promptfondler” is pretty good too.
Well are we not stochastic parrots then? Isn’t this a philosophical, rhetorical and equally unfalsifiable question to answer also?
Hark! I hear the wanker roar.
fuck off, promptfondler
no
No, there’s an actual paper where that term originated that goes into great deal explaining what it means and what it applies to. It answers those questions and addresses potential objections people might respond with.
There’s no need for–and, frankly, nothing interesting about–“but, what is truth, really?” vibes-based takes on the term.
A lot of people still don’t, from what I can gather from some of the comments on “AI” topics. Especially the ones that skew the other way with its “AI” hysteria is often an invite from people who know fuck all about how the tech works. “Nudifier” or otherwise generative images or explicit chats with bots that portray real or underage people being the most common topics that attract emotionally loaded but highly uninformed demands and outrage. Frankly, the whole “AI” topic in the media is so massively overblown on both fronts, but I guess it is good for traffic and nuance is dead anyway.
Indeed, although every one of us who have seen a tech hype train once or twice expected nothing less.
PDAs? Quantum computing. Touch screens. Siri. Cortana. Micropayments. Apps. Synergy of desktop and mobile.
From the outset this went from “hey that’s kind of neat” to quite possibly toppling some giants of tech in a flash. Now all we have to do is wait for the boards to give huge payouts to the pinheads that drove this shitwagon in here and we can get back to doing cool things without some imaginary fantasy stapled on to it at the explicit instruction of marketing and channel sales.
Xml also used to be a tech hype for a bit.
And i still remember how media outlets hyped up second life, forgot about it and a few months later discovered it again and more hype started. It was fun.
this reminds me of some of the more cursed things I know from that hype era
(see this for some others)
WP:LOL. WP:LMAO even
and then spent the entire Metaverse hype pretending Second Life didn’t exist
./^ L E G S ^\.
Lot easier to do hype when you pretend the previous iterations didn’t exist. (and still do, and actually have more content).
Touch screens?
Yeah a huge thing at one point. Anyone use a laptop with a tochscreen?
Everyday, big thing in schools.
Of course, of course. At the time though, it was expected that this would change the face of computing - no more keyboards! No more mice! No, this is more like Star Trek where you glance down at some geometric assemblage of colored shapes and tap several in random succession to immediately bring up the data you were looking for.
That, uh, did not happen.
Aren’t touch screens literally everywhere? What was the hype?
It’s always so baffling to me to learn about those things because I was way too young to actually experience any of the “hype” around most of those technologies. Touch screens are cool and they penetrated society so much there are at my grocery shop, what the fuck were they supposed to do if that’s not living up to the hype?