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 …
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 ontologically nonsensicalness of 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.
Only in the philosophical sense of all of physics being a giant stochastic system.
But that’s equally useful as saying that we’re Turing machines? Yes, if you draw a broad category of “all things that compute in our universe” then you can make a reasonable (but disputable!) argument that both me and a Python interpreter are in the same category of things. That doesn’t mean that a Python interpreter is smart/sentient/will solve climate change/whatever Sammy Boi wants to claim this week.
Or, to use a different analogy, it’s like saying “we’re all just cosmic energy, bro”. Yes we are, pass the joint already and stop trying to raise billions of dollars for your energy woodchipper.
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.
“Language is a virus from outer space”
I thought it came from Babylonian writing that recoded the brains and planted the languages.
Well are we not stochastic parrots then? Isn’t this a philosophical, rhetorical and equally unfalsifiable question to answer also?
fuck off, promptfondler
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.
Hark! I hear the wanker roar.
no
Only in the philosophical sense of all of physics being a giant stochastic system.
But that’s equally useful as saying that we’re Turing machines? Yes, if you draw a broad category of “all things that compute in our universe” then you can make a reasonable (but disputable!) argument that both me and a Python interpreter are in the same category of things. That doesn’t mean that a Python interpreter is smart/sentient/will solve climate change/whatever Sammy Boi wants to claim this week.
Or, to use a different analogy, it’s like saying “we’re all just cosmic energy, bro”. Yes we are, pass the joint already and stop trying to raise billions of dollars for your energy woodchipper.