[gitaarik]

Yes ok, it can generate new stuff, but it's dependent on human curated reward models to score the output to make it usable. So it still depends on human thinking, it's own "thinking" is not sufficient. And there won't be a point when human curated reward models are not needed anymore.

LLM's will make a lot of things easier for humans, because most of the thinking the humans do have been automated into the LLM. But ultimately you run into a limit where the human has to take over.

[JoshCole]

> dependent on human curated reward models to score the output to make it usable.

This is a false premise, because there already exist systems, currently deployed, which are not dependent on human-curated reward models.

Refutations of your point include existing systems which generate a reward model based on some learned AI scoring function, allowing self-bootstrapping toward higher and higher levels.

A different refutation of your point is the existing simulation contexts, for example, by R1, in which coding compilation is used as a reward signal; here the reward model comes from a simulator, not a human.

> So it still depends on human thinking

Since your premise was false your corollary does not follow from it.

> And there won't be a point when human curated reward models are not needed anymore.

This is just a repetition of your previously false statement, not a new one. You're probably becoming increasingly overconfident by restating falsehoods in different words, potentially giving the impression you've made a more substantive argument than you really have.

[gitaarik]

So to clarify, it could potentially come up with (something close to) C, but if you want it to get to D, E, F etc, it will become less and less accurate for each consequentive step, because it lacks the human curated reward models up to that point. Only if you create new reward models for C, the output for D will improve, and so on.

[JoshCole]

> Only if you create new reward models for C, the output for D will improve, and so on.

Again, tons of false claims. One is that 'you' have to create the reward model. Another that it has to be human-curated at all. Yet another is that you even need to do that at all: you can instead have the model build a bigger model of itself, train using its existing resources or more of them, then synthesize itself back down. Another way you can get around it is to augment the existing dataset in some way. No other changes except resource usage and yet the resulting model will be better, because more resources went into its construction.

Seriously notice: you keep making false claims again and again and again and again and again. You're not stating true things. You really need to reflect. If almost every sentence you speak on this topic is false, why is it that you think you should be able to persuade me to your views? Why should I believe your views, when you say so many things that are factually inaccurate, rather than my own views?

[gitaarik]

Ok, so you claim that LLMs can get smarter without human validation. So why do they hallucinate at all? And why are all reward models currently curated by humans? Or are you claiming they aren't?

[JoshCole]

I don't find it reasonable that you didn't understand my corrections, because current AI already do. So I'm exiting the conversation.

https://chatgpt.com/share/683a3c88-62a8-8008-92ef-df16ce2e8a...

[gitaarik]

Ok, this is interesting indeed and I'll investigate more into it. But I think my points still stand. Let me elaborate.

An LLM only learns through input text. It doesn't have a first-person 3D experience of the world. So it can't execute physical experiments, or even understand them. It can understand the texts about it, but it can't visualize it, because it doesn't have a visual experience.

And ultimately our physical world is governed by physical processes. So at the fundamentals of physical reality, the LLMs lack understanding. And therefore will stay dependent on humans educating and correcting it.

You might get pretty impressively far with all kinds of techniques, but you can't cross this barrier with just LLMs. If you want to, you have to give it senses like humans to give it an experience of the world, and make it understand these experiences. And sure they're already working on that, but that is a lot harder to create than a comprehensive machine learning algorithm.

[JoshCole]

You're doing this thing again where you say tons of things that aren't true.

> An LLM only learns through input text.

This is false. There already exist LLM which understand more than just text. Relevant search term: multi-modality.

> It doesn't have a first-person 3D experience of the world.

Again false. It is trivial to create such an experience with multi-modality. Just set up an input device which streams that.

> So it can't execute physical experiments, or even understand them.

Here you get confused again. It doesn't follow, based on perceptual modality, that someone can't do or understand experiments. Hellen Keller can be both blind, but also do an experiment.

Beyond just being confused, you also make another false claim. Current LLMs already have the capacity to run experiments and do so. Search terms: tool usage, ReAct loop, AI agents.

> It can understand the texts about it, but it can't visualize it, because it doesn't have a visual experience.

Again, false!

Multi-modal LLMs currently possess the ability to generate images.

> And ultimately our physical world is governed by physical processes. So at the fundamentals of physical reality, the LLMs lack understanding. And therefore will stay dependent on humans educating and correcting it.

Again false. The same sort of reasoning would claim that Hellen Keller couldn't read a book, but braille exists. The ability to acquire information outside an umwelt is a capability that intelligence enables.

[vidarh]

> And there won't be a point when human curated reward models are not needed anymore.

This doesn't follow at all. There's no reason why a model can not be made to produce reward models.

[gitaarik]

But reward models are always curated by humans. If you generate a reward model with an LLM, it will contain hallucinations that need to be corrected by humans. But that is what a reward model is for. To correct the hallucinations of LLMs.

So yeah theoretically you could generate reward models with LLMs, but they won't be any good, unless they are curated by other reward models that are ultimately curated by humans.

[vidarh]

> But reward models are always curated by humans.

There is no inherent reason why they need to be.

> So yeah theoretically you could generate reward models with LLMs, but they won't be any good, unless they are curated by other reward models that are ultimately curated by humans.

This reasoning is begging the question: The reasoning is true only if the conclusion is true. It's therefore a logically invalid argument.

There is no inherent reason why this needs to be the case.

[gitaarik]

Sorry but I don't follow your logic. Are you claiming that reward models that aren't curated by humans perform as well as ones that are?

Then what is a reward model's function according to you?

[vidarh]

I'm claiming exactly what I wrote: That there is no inherent reason why a human curated one needs to be better.

[JoshCole]

In reinforcement learning and related fields, a _reward model_ is a function that assigns a scalar value (a reward) to a given state, representing how desirable it is. You're at liberty to have compound states: for an example, a trajectory (often called tau) or a state action pair (typically represented by s and a).