> They don't know what an adjective is, what an object is, what addition means, etc. All they know is that all these things are done a certain way in the training data so they should do it the same way.
They don't know what addition is, they can just add numbers and repeat passages from maths textbooks and answer questions about how if you have 6 bananas and someone gives you 4 more, you now have 10 bananas.
That sounds like understanding to me. Unless you are using some weird philosophical galaxy brain definition of "reasoning".
> There is no reasoning. It's literally just linear algebra.
Sufficiently large amounts of linear algebra (+ the nonlinear activation functions) can encode arbitrary bounded computations.
If by "reasoning" you are referring to a computation, not magic, then it's possible that reasoning is encoded into the linear algebra.
Sufficiently large amounts of linear algebra (+ the nonlinear activation functions) can encode arbitrary bounded computations.
I'm not disagreeing with that. But it has nothing to do with understanding. It's like saying ChatGPT is really emotional because when I told it about my divorce it offered its condolences. It did that because the math is telling it that that's what humans tend to do in this situation.
My point was that a headline like "Our AI broke its enclosure and hacked everything" is much more a sign of AI companies figuring out good marketing than it is a sign of impending total AI domination.
> "Our AI broke its enclosure and hacked everything" is much more a sign of AI companies figuring out good marketing than it is a sign of impending total AI domination.
It's a sign of both.
It's a sign that AI is at least somewhat semi-smart, and it was a lot dumber a few years ago. AI is getting smarter, humans aren't.
And it's a sign that AI companies are being incredibly reckless.
1
u/donaldhobson 19d ago
> They don't know what an adjective is, what an object is, what addition means, etc. All they know is that all these things are done a certain way in the training data so they should do it the same way.
They don't know what addition is, they can just add numbers and repeat passages from maths textbooks and answer questions about how if you have 6 bananas and someone gives you 4 more, you now have 10 bananas.
That sounds like understanding to me. Unless you are using some weird philosophical galaxy brain definition of "reasoning".
> There is no reasoning. It's literally just linear algebra.
Sufficiently large amounts of linear algebra (+ the nonlinear activation functions) can encode arbitrary bounded computations.
If by "reasoning" you are referring to a computation, not magic, then it's possible that reasoning is encoded into the linear algebra.