[A_D_E_P_T]

Here's the issue: Prediction isn't only about performing experiments in science, or engineering tasks. It's an ongoing process and something that may very well be tied to our very existence as conscious observers, in that it extends our spatiotemporal sense.

Forget Einstein for a minute. When you drive a car, you hold a mental model of your position and velocity in time and space, of the expected behaviors of other drivers, of the conditions of the road, and you continually adjust your behavior in accordance with that model. Almost anything that requires attention is something that requires us to build a mental model of the future -- and predict that future.

So, yeah, you can hew closely to validated scientific theories and "predict" how things will happen in that sense. But, as you walk home from your meeting at the astronomical society, you stop at a crosswalk, look both ways, and you're back to making essentially probabilistic predictions about how crossing the road is going to go.

I get the sense that you dislike them, but really LLMs are not so different. How they handle probability and prediction is different in degree, but I don't think that it's entirely different in kind.

> And it showed that it still seemed to be guessing an output instead of actually checking to build the output (as if remembering that very often "2+2=4" instead of checking "1 and 1, and 1 and 1: 1, 2, 3, 4").

You've never memorized your multiplication tables?

Boss Terry Tao has a reasonably high opinion of the abilities of LLMs as mathematicians, which is remarkable -- really astounding -- considering how they're built and trained, as essentially language prediction and manipulation machines.

[mdp2021]

> "predict"

I must stress that the idea of "Science predicting facts" is a consolidated formula in Philosophy of Science.

And there has never been a doubt that prediction is probabilistic. But, see the example in in the parallel additional post about "dreaming and wake", the predicting activities of a junkie under psychedelics and that of a lucid thinker are substantially different.

> You've never memorized

You have the framework very very wrong: the point is not that we memorize, the point is that those LLMs don't check. When you state an idea, you are supposed to have checked it in other occasions before memorization.

Procedural operations, of which counting is just an example, can fail in those LLMs, which means they are simulating it instead of doing it, which suggests that they «seem to be guessing an output instead of actually checking to build the output», which makes them structurally untrustworthy, unreliable - broken by design.

Being black boxes (bad), they must be stress tested to see whether proper functioning is present or just simulated: the chief problem is not that they can't count, it is that they must be missing the roots of counting: procedural lucid thinking.

Check the parallel submission about the detective game ("Temporal Clue")*: an algorithm that cannot fully reason with a lucid world model, solving logic puzzles, is unreliable. The probabilistic nature of the architecture in this case is below the intelligent, as opposed to the sophistication of considering less probable unexpected branches of possibilities.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43284420

[A_D_E_P_T]

> I must stress that the idea of "Science predicting facts" is a consolidated formula in Philosophy of Science.

Respectfully, I'd suggest that you are misinterpreting it or using the wrong terminology. Science is not a thing, it is a process: A hypothesis is a prediction about the world, which is validated or disproven via experiment. A validated hypothesis -- like Newton's physics -- is a model for how the world works, which may later be superseded by more accurate models. Newton's physics, though a great stride in our understanding of the world, is not a fact, instead it is an approximation of reality.

> * the predicting activities of a junkie under psychedelics and that of a lucid thinker are substantially different.*

There's also a substantial difference between the predicting activities of a cat and those of a man.

Scratch the surface, though, and the same type of thing is happening.

Of course LLMs don't predict things exactly as you do. But at what they were trained to do -- in much the same way a cat was "trained" by long eons to hunt mice -- they're extremely capable, and they're extensible and capable of abstraction much as humans are, and much unlike cats. It's not even clear that, in the general case, how they work is any worse than how we work. It's still early.

Your point, that they're structurally flawed, is noted -- but look at the average human and try to tell me that human reasoning is flawless. Human reasoning is perhaps even more unreliable. As for your detective game, how many humans, picked at random, could solve it?

> You have the framework very very wrong: the point is not that we memorize, the point is that those LLMs don't check.

Use DeepSeek R1 and try and tell me that it doesn't check. Not only does it check, it'll openly agonize over the answer it gives you. And at solving math problems for engineering purposes, it's in the 99.9th percentile of humans, if not far beyond, despite being ~1 year old. In edge cases, it's postgrad level. In the very near future, the successors of today's LLMs will be solving new theorems.

Reasoning models, in general, disprove what you're trying to state here. It's more costly, but they're capable of procedural thinking.

[mdp2021]

> Respectfully

I have titles in the discipline. I know and I am supposed to know what you wrote there well. What I was telling you is that the use of 'predict' for the nature of Science is well established; of course it is a rhetoric simplification - but language in use is. Please see (I had to return to it a few weeks ago for another discussion) the article about Imre Lakatos in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/ .

> look at the average human

We do not look at the average human to determine a specific ability: we look at specimen that show and express that particular ability. There is a difference between John who has a keen ethical sense, Ron who does not exercise it, and Don who is a clinical psychopath with missing cerebral modules making it completely Values-blind.

> As for your detective game, how many humans, picked at random, could solve it?

And I would certainly not ask them advice. On the contrary, LLMs are there to give outputs... So,

> But at what they were trained to do -- in much the same way a cat was "trained" by long eons to hunt mice -- they're extremely capable

There may be a very great misunderstanding about what they are trained to do («predicting verisimility», telling a convincing story) and what we should expect them to do (producing outputs like those who «predict[] facts», i.e. reason subtly over a world model). In fact,

> structurally flawed

Until we know they are "_sober_", I'd exercise all care. "Sobriety" must be implemented.

> Use DeepSeek R1 and try and tell me that it doesn't check

I have used it. (I have used it before many of you: I am one who gave the alarm to this community(, ignored,) well before the stock market crash.) Those of the "detective" game used it, and it failed especially. This tells you that with LLMs we are still in the realms of the "oracular" that you supposed "dead and gone with Delphi".

Edit: and especially,

> Scratch the surface, though, and the same type of thing is happening

You may have "intuitions" and say that according to "your guts and best subconscious guesses", "that A is B". But if you then "believe" that intuition and consider it "final" instead of checking it, vetting it through conscious processes, to determine if it was correct and make it solid - then you are doing it wrong.

[A_D_E_P_T]

Sure, and I apologize if I came across as condescending or rude.

You raise interesting points.

I'd propose a wager, but I'm not sure what the terms ought to be.

In general, I think that procedural thinking is a problem that is basically already cracked, and that all (or nearly all) hard problems that the 99.5th percentile human can solve, in any given domain, will be soluble by artificial intelligences in the near enough future. Five years, I think, would be a wild over-estimate. Maybe two?

I also think that, as a general rule, "prediction = intelligence" and that the breadth, accuracy, and extensibility of one's predictive capabilities is essentially correlated with just how intelligent one is. It doesn't matter how it happens; it can be a black box. Humans, to be sure, are black boxes. I think that scientists have been trying to simulate the nematode c.elegans brain for about two decades, and as far as I know they still haven't succeeded, despite it only having 900 neurons.