|
|
|
|
|
|
by famouswaffles
1097 days ago
|
|
|
>The "failure modes" in humans do not show we lack the capacity. Then they don't in LLMs too >Yes, lol --- why do you think that is? Being able to solve a changed common puzzle but also with different names than it would ever see in training is not an indication of a lack of ability lol. and changing names isn't the only way to get it out of memory, just the easiest/most straightforward. You can converse it out of there too but that doesn't work as often. |
|
|
LLMs don't get drunk .
If a child answers questions from a book of answers then they'll appear to understand the domain insofar as those questions appear. They do not.
They will fail to answer questions under, eg., permutations of words (say, a question asks about "norepinephrine" but the book only contains "noradrenaline" etc.).
Insofar as a human cannot answer questions under trivial linguistic permutations then they too do not understand the domain.
But these are not the kinds of failures experienced with those who have some capacity, eg., for counter-factual reasoning about their environment's physics.
In those people it is environmental illusion and cognitive impairment -- not trivial permutations of phrasing which lead to catastrophic loss of apparent understanding.
Cognitive impairment = reasoning machine is broken
Environmental illusion = data is ambigious and actions cannto resolve it
These "failure modes" are expected if you actually have the relevant capacity.