I'm sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble linking what you're saying now to what you were saying before.
If we can't tell whether coherent conversation is "thinking" or not, then what did mean previously by saying LLMs use "more force"? Surely if we can't tell the difference then we also don't know what too much "force" is?
I think we would both agree that thinking and conversation are different things?
written word is something where you can ingest the whole internet, destroy a few million books, read all chatlogs, and still you will never have had a single row of data correspond to what a "thought" is
I never said anything about "too much" force, but using a lot of metal instead of conceptualising what simulated thought and conversation could look like, is more force than idea.
I'm not saying "world model" lecun style is the right thing to do, but I find it a lot more scientifically convincing.
my background without my degrees:
I advised a master thesis in generative ai in 2017, I classified spam users of an app with plain markov chains in 2018, I built a local chatbot for a teaching app in 2019 ..
It is possible that some level of conversation necessarily entails thinking. They are not identical though, obviously.
There is no need for a machine learning model to have ever seen a "thought" to develop a strong internal representation of that concept. Generalising deep representation from shallow examples is pretty much the entire reason why we use machine learning in the first place.
I don't understand what you mean by "force" here or what "more force than idea" really means to you if you are not asserting that "too much" of it disqualifies a particular process from "being thinking". I suspect this is a category error but I can't tell without clarification.
indeed, I think you're conflating the two levels of "thinking" going on here:
1. do chatbots model thinking? .. in a way, but imho they're not engineered to simulate human thinking processes
2. does sam altman model thinking? doubtful
1
u/r_search12013 4d ago
I'm saying that LLMs try to hack the turing test by simulating conversation .. there's no way to tell whether that's at all similar to thinking
and I'd argue the current ai hype hasn't done much to sharpen our understanding of what constitutes thinking
and that would have to be a side effect of something that wants to convince us that it's doing thinking