[steve_adams_86]

Okay, we have fundamentally different understandings here.

To me, the LLM isn't understanding ToM, it's using patterns to predict lingual structures which match our expectations of ToM. There's no evidence of understanding so much as accommodating, which are entirely different.

I agree that LLMs provide ToM-like features. I do not agree that they possess it in some way that it's a perfectly solved problem within the machine, so to speak.

[Maxatar]

The problem with this line of argument is that nothing an LLM, or any algorithm period can ever have a theory of mind.

If behaving in a way that is identical to a person with actual consciousness can't be considered consciousness because you are familiar with its implementation details, then it's impossible to satisfy you.

Now you can argue of course that current LLMs do not behave identically to a person, and I agree and I think most people agree... but things are improving drastically and it's not clear what things will look like 10 years from now or even 5 years from now.

[steve_adams_86]

I agree, totally. I'm not sure where I would draw a line.

Something nice, but at the moment totally unattainable with our current technologies, would be our own understanding of how a technology achieves ToM. If it has to be a blackbox, I'm too ape-like to trust it or believe there's an inner world beyond statistics within the machine.

Having said that, I do wonder quite often if our own consciousness is spurred from essentially the same thing. An LLM lacks much of the same capabilities that makes our inner world possible, yet if we really are driven by our own statistical engines, we'd be in no position to criticize algorithms for having the same disposition. It's very grey, right?

For now, good LLMs do an excellent job demonstrating ToM. That's inarguable. I suppose my hangup is that it's happening on metal rather than in meat, and in total isolation from many other mind-like qualities we like to associate with consciousness or sentience. So it seems wrong in a way. Again, that's probably the ape in me recoiling at something uncanny.

[famouswaffles]

Either these supposed differences are important and they manifest themselves in observable differences or they aren't and you're just playing a game of semantics.

How is the LLM not understanding ToM by any standard we measure humans by ? I cannot peak into your brain with my trusty ToM-o-meter and measure the amount of ToM flowing in there. With your line of reasoning, i could simply claim you do not understand theory of mind and call it a day.

[steve_adams_86]

The difference is that we can reason about our experience with ToM and examine it to some degree (given with serious limitations, still), and know that beyond doubt you and I and most other people have a very similar experience.

The magical box is presumably not having the same experience we have. None of the connected emotions, impulses, memories, and so on that come with ToM in a typical human mind. So what’s really going on in there? And if it isn’t the same as our experience, is it still ToM?

I’m not trying to be contrarian or anything here. I think we probably agree about a lot of this. And I find it absolutely incredible, ToM or not, that language models can do this.

[famouswaffles]

>The difference is that we can reason about our experience with ToM and examine it to some degree (given with serious limitations, still),

Those examinations still depend on outward behaviors observed.

>and know that beyond doubt you and I and most other people have a very similar experience.

No i certainly can't. I can at best say, 'Well, i'm human and he's human so he probably has theory of mind' but that is by no means beyond any doubt. There are humans born with no arms, humans born with no legs, humans born with little to no empathy, humans born with so little intelligence they will never be able to care for themselves.

To be frank, It would be very questionable indeed logically to assume every human is 'conscious'. When i make that assumption, i take a leap of faith, i look at behaviors, see it is similar and accept.

Taking this stance, it would logically be very strange to not extend the same grace to non-human beings who exhibit similar behavior - being human is not a guarantee of consciousness in the first place.

>The magical box is presumably not having the same experience we have.

Maybe, Maybe not. I think the real question is why on earth does that matter ? We're not asking if LLMs are human. They are not. We're asking if they can model the beliefs and internal states of other entities as separate of their own - Theory of Mind.