[CrackerNews]

Neural nets and LLMs were created based on neuroscience research. Ultimately they are approximations of how parts of the human brain works.

The real concern of having no biomechanical skin in the game is lacking sensory input that could ground it within our reality. All input into LLMs are based on digital output of human labor, which are ultimately symbolic representations filtered through our brain and its ideas of reality. However, this may not be too different from how our real human brains work.

There has been a philosophical dilemma over how real consciousness can be as if it is imagined by our brains since our brains provide convincing hallucination of what seems like real sensory input or even free will. That is to say that humans at a philosophical level live in their brains interpreting a fragment of reality based upon how it interprets sensory input.

Now the LLM as a brain cuts out an entire step of agentic sensory input and they exist wholly as the result of our ideas.

[Marshferm]

They have no functional or processual relationship to brains, there are scores of papers making light of this. There are no valid parallels between AI and brains.

There were never approximations merely false models.

The field is trapped in bad definitions and decisions

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37863713/

[CrackerNews]

The keyword of that study is consciousness, which I'd consider a separate goal than an "intelligence". LLM proponents are aware that their architecture lacks many parts of what constitutes a complete brain, and there's other AI researchers who disagree that LLMs will lead to either AGI or consciousness. I largely consider these tangential to the topic. A neural net simulation of a virtual reality does not need consciousness as it has to model the consequences of agentic actions.

[Marshferm]

It’s not a keyword, it’s the seat of intelligence. What coders don’t grasp is nothing g related to symbols metaphors words language manifests as consciousness and or intel. Your field is a wash.

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT

[CrackerNews]

When I look up that quote, it leads back to Hacker News comments. It is also a strange way to make a citation. You make blanket statements that are easily argued against, and now you respond with this nonsense. I accuse you of being an LLM bot.

[Marshferm]

Take great offense at being called a bot, especially considering any glance can spot my numerous typos. And the weakness of your search capability: that quote is from a discussion of Ev’s following the pub of this paper

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4874898/

And btw, that’s not a blanket statement that’s an empirical statement that wipes away quite a bit of LLM relevance. I’d say it destroys the approach.

Do the research. And an apology is in good order.

[CrackerNews]

That exact quote does not appear in the paper. You cannot attack me for your lack of due diligence.

This paper does little to dismiss LLMs. LLMs can use a different medium than text and that would not take away from its underlying mathematical models based on neuroscience. LLMs only understand language representations implicitly through statistical analysis, and that may instead show a commonality with how the human brain thinks as written in this paper.

I will not apologize for how you keep pushing an agenda despite how poorly supported it is. I have tried to be intellectually honest about the state of the industry and its flaws. I would implore you to instead do the research about LLMs so you can better refine your critique of them.