|
|
|
|
|
|
by accountnum
650 days ago
|
|
|
No, you're not. Are you genuinely trying to suggest that LLMs, which can: - Construct arbitrary text that isn't just grammatically but semantically coherent - Derive intent, subtle intent, from user queries and responses - Emulate endless different personalities and their reactions to endless stimuli - Describe in detail the statics and dynamics of the world, including sight, smell, touch and sound do not have a model of the external world? What do you think a "corpus" means in this context? How is the "corpus" of sensory and evolutionary data that makes you up in any way different? LLMs are excellent common sense reasoners, and they generalize just fine. Why exactly do you think they get things _subtly_ wrong? Make up API syntax that looks sensible but isn't actually implemented? In order to make these guesses they need to have generalized, they need an understanding of the structure underlying naming, such that they can produce _sensible_ output even if they lack the hard facts. |
|
|
But just few months ago, saw example of AI, from video, building an internal representation of the world. An internal model of the world. Everyone saying this can't be done, it already is. Maybe can argue it wasn't an LLM, and then I'd say were nitpicking over which technology can do it or not. We already have example of tying them together, symbols and LLM's.
Might be related. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00288-1 https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/08/103223/two-rival...