|
|
|
|
|
by jychang
329 days ago
|
|
I fail to see how that matters. You're implying that all reality is cultural, but that seems irrelevant. The same thing would apply to scientific facts, but whales not having a word for science doesn't make it not real. If we somehow discover LLMs right after Newton discovered the theory of gravity, and then a while later Einstein discovers General Relativity, then GR would not be in the training set of the neural net. That doesn't make GR any less of a description of reality! You also can't convert General Relativity into whalesong! But you CAN explain General Relativity in English, or in Chinese to a person in china. So the fact that we can create a mapping from the concept of General Relativity in the neural network of the brain of a human in the USA using english, to someone in china using chinese, to a ML model, is what makes it a shared statistical model of reality. You also can't convert General Relativity to the language of "infant babble", does it make general relativity any less real? |
|
Let's look at two examples of cultural reality:
Fan death in South Korea. Where people believe that a fan running while you sleep can kill you.
The book "Pure, White and Deadly". Where we discredited the author and his findings and spent decades blaming fat, while packing on the pounds with high fructose corn syrup.
An LLM isn't going to find some intrinsic truth, that we are ignoring, in its data set. An LLM isn't going to find issues in the reproducibility / replication crisis. I have not seen one discredit a scientific paper with its own findings.
To be clear LLM's can be amazing tools, but garbage in garbage out still applies.