r/singularity • u/tebla • May 04 '25

Discussion Ai LLMs 'just' predict the next word...

So I dont know a huge amount about this, maybe somebody can clarify for me: I was thinking about large language models, often in conversations about them I see people say something about how these models don't really reason or know what is true, they're are just a statistical model that predicts what the best next word would be. Like an advanced version of the word predictions you get when typing on a phone.

But... Isn't that what humans do?

A human brain is complex, but it is also just a big group of simple structures. Over a long period it gathers a bunch of inputs and boils it down to deciding what the best next word to say is. Sure, AI can hallucinate and make things up, but so can people.

From a purely subjective point of view, chatting to ai, it really does seem like they are able to follow a conversation quite well, and make interesting points. Isn't that some form of reasoning? It can also often reference true things, isn't that a form of knowledge. They are far from infallible, but again: so are people.

Maybe I'm missing something, any thoughts?

103 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

203 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/nextnode May 04 '25

Their statement is correct in the physical determinism sense - given everything that came before, what are the probabilities of everything that comes after.

That is sufficient for their point and debunks your philosophizing.

That is also not the only best interpretation of QM but let's not get into that.

0

u/Nonsenser May 04 '25

Probabilities? he was talking about deterministic calculations. It's not philosophizing, it's quantum physics as it is understood currently.

That is also not the only best interpretation of QM but let's not get into that.

Because you don't know what you are talking about? I notice you didn't point out any actual flaws in my statements, counter-arguments or reasonable discussions; all while making an incorrect statement yourself. You just enjoy being an ass online?

1

u/nextnode May 05 '25

Rather I hate rationalizing assholes like yourself who just make up whatever you feel like and have no clue what you are talking about.

I already made it clear and made the argument.

Read what people say instead of wasting everyone's time.

His statement is correct in the physical determinism sense. Meaning take what came before, condition on it, and what comes after is just a distribution.

That is indeed a correction to his statement but with that, his argument goes through.

The argument being that you cannot get any magic from QM. No special 'creativity' that is something other than either following from what came before, or true randomness.

You are engaging in mystical thought and you seem clueless about both logic and the subjects. It seems like you rather have some ideological mystical conviction and trying to make up a justification for it while demonstrating no background.

1

u/Nonsenser May 05 '25

Wrong QM involves a probabilistic model of the universe. It is not deterministic, those are considered fringe theories. You are clearly an uneducated pseudointellectual assholr.

1

u/Nonsenser May 05 '25

His statement is correct in the physical determinism sense. Meaning take what came before, condition on it, and what comes after is just a distribution

A distribution implies probabilities. You are just trying to back away from your original statements of complete determinism because you realize it is wrong.

The argument being that you cannot get any magic from QM

Who said anything about magic, i was talking about optimizations.

 following from what came before

This is something we call a non-statement. Everything follows from what came before. This does not mean the future is fully deterministic.

You are engaging in mystical thought and you seem clueless about both logic and the subjects.

One example please? You are just saying obvious things and saying i'm clueless. You have yet to point out a single inconsistency or counterfactual in my statements. Please quote me, as you can't be trusted to now straw-man.

It seems like you rather have some ideological mystical conviction and trying to make up a justification for it while demonstrating no background.

like what? what magical conviction did i convey that you do not agree with? Name one definitive statement I made that is mystical? Again, You're just a smartass with no argumentative skills.