|
|
|
|
|
by CamperBob2
926 days ago
|
|
Why are people so eager to believe that people can? When it comes to the definitions of concepts like sentience, consciousness, thinking and understanding, we literally don't know what we're talking about. It's premature in the extreme to point at something that behaves so much like we do ourselves and claim that whatever it's doing, it's not "understanding" anything. |
|
Are we not generally good at detecting when someone understands us? Perhaps it's because understanding has actual meaning. If you communicate to me that you hit your head and feel like shit, I not only understand that you experienced an unsatisfactory situation, I'm capable of empathy -- understanding not only WHAT happened, but HOW it feels -- and offering consolation or high fives or whatever.
A LLM has an understanding of what common responses were in the past, and repeats them. Statistical models may mimic a process we use in our thinking, but it is not the entirety of our thinking. Just like computers are limited to the programmers that code their behavior, LLMs are limited to the quality of the data corpus fed to them.
A human, you can correct in real time and they'll (try to) internalize that information in future interactions. Not so with LLMs.
By all means, tell us how statistically weighted answers to "what's the next word" correlates to understanding.