[geraneum]

That’s actually correct but an overfitted definition for learning. It holds certain hidden assumptions (i.e physical grounding) of the learner being human which makes it inapplicable to an LLM. As in a self driving car which passes a driving exam but fails to drive effectively freely in the city (it’s not an LLM but relevant in this context). You have to admit when you work with this tech that something fundamental is missing in how they perform.

[willbudd]

> That’s actually correct but an overfitted definition for learning. It holds certain hidden assumptions (i.e physical grounding) of the learner being human which makes it inapplicable to an LLM.

Inapplicable why exactly? Because you say so? Logic isn't magic. Nor is learning. No (external) grounding is required either: iteratively eliminating inconsistent world models is all you need to converge toward a model of the real world. Nothing especially human or inhuman about it. LLM architecture may not be able to represent a fully recursive backtracking truth maintenance system, but it evidently managed to learn a pretty decent approximation anyway.

[geraneum]

> Because you say so?

Chill my friend, no need to get personal. We are talking about ideas. It’s OK to disagree. I am simply dismissing your initial claim. This usually happens when you present a scientific argument based on personal beliefs. If it’s not magic, then we should be able to doubt and examine it and it should eventually pass scientific muster.

> No grounding is required… It evidently managed to learn a pretty decent approximation.

Well, last time I used an LLM it suggested that I should lift the chair I am sitting in. I guess OpenAI has a lot of work to do. They have to eliminate this inconsistent world model for chairs, tables, floor, My dog, my cat and all the cats living on Mars…

edit: added a missing word.

[willbudd]

Wasn't intended to be personal. Just a mediocre way of expressing that your assertion there is missing any form of argumentation, and therefore as baseless as it is unconvincing.

I'm seeing an emergent capability of encoding higher order logic, and the whole point of such abstractions is to not need to hardcode your weights with the minutiae of cats on Mars. LLMs today are only trained to predict text, so it's hardly surprising that they have some gaps in their understanding of Newtonian physics. But that doesn't mean the innate capability of grasping such logic isn't there, waiting for the right training regime to expose it to its own falling apples, so to speak.