[qaadika]

I'm kinda one of those who believes they 'completely' understand LLMs. But I've also developed my understanding of them such that the internal mechanisms of the transformer, or really any future development in the space based on neural networks and machine learning is irrelevant.

1. A string of unicode characters is converted into an array of integers values (tokens) and input to a black box of choice.

2. The black box takes in the input, does its magic, and returns an output as an array of integer values.

3. The returned output is converted into a string of unicode characters and given to the user, or inserted in a code file, or whatever. At no point does the black box "read" the input in any way analogous to how a human reads.

Where people get "The AIs have emotions!!!" from returning an array of integers values is beyond me. It's definitely more complicated than "next token predictor", but it really is as simple as "Make words look like numbers, numbers go in, numbers come out, we make the numbers look like words."

[threethirtytwo]

Yeah nothing personal but my claim here is you’re not smart. The next token predictor aspect is something anyone can understand… the transformer is not quantum physics.

Like look at what you wrote. You called it black box magic and in the same post you claim you understand LLMs. How the heck can you understand and call it a black box at the same time?

The level of mental gymnastics and stupidity is through the roof. Clearly the majority of the utilitarian nature of the LLM is within the whole section you just waved away as “black box”.

> Where people get "The AIs have emotions!!!" from returning an array of integers values is beyond me

Let me spell it out for you. Those integers can be translated to the exact same language humans use when they feel identical emotions. So those people claim that the “black box” feels the emotions because what they observe is identical to what they observe in a human.

The LLM can claim it feels emotions just like a human can claim the same thing. We assume humans feel emotions based off of this evidence but we don’t apply that logic to LLMs? The truth of the matter is we don’t actually know and it’s equally dumb to claim that you know LLMs feel emotions to claiming that they dont feel emotions.

You have to be pretty stupid to not realize this is where they are coming from so there’s an aspect of you lying to yourself here because I don’t think you’re that stupid.

[adrian_b]

Of course LLMs display human emotions, if they have been trained on texts that have recorded humans displaying human emotions.

With an input context that contains words that excite certain human emotions, the output of the core LLM function will generate a token probability distribution that is representative for the human emotions displayed by humans in the training texts.

This is something expected and non-sensational. An LLM mimics the human behavior that was recorded in the training texts, much in the same way as a photographic image of a human face mimics the appearance of that human face.

A photographic image is designed to reproduce the light field created by a face that reflects the ambient light, a LLM is created to reproduce the typical conversational behavior that was recorded in the training texts.

Depending on how it was trained, one should expect a LLM to be affected by the choice of words used in the input in a similar way how a human would be affected.

However, that does not mean that a LLM that shows signs of emotional distress feels some pain because of that. A LLM is designed for mimicry and it does not feel more pain or more happiness than a photograph of a wound feels pain from the wound or a photograph of a smiley face feels happiness.

The fact that the current LLMs do not actually feel the human emotions that they may be able to mimic in an accurate way, does not mean that you could not build a robot which would have some built-in mechanisms for feeling pain and various emotions, which could be made to have similar functions like in an animal, serving a functional purpose and not being used for mimicry. However, for now it does not make any sense to attempt to do such a thing, because in a deterministic program there are better ways to ensure that a robot is "loyal" to its owner and acts in self-preservation when possible.

[threethirtytwo]

> Of course LLMs display human emotions

Yes, your entire expose as to why this occurs is obvious. I agree and I know this and it wasn’t my point.

> The fact that the current LLMs do not actually feel the human emotions

This was my point, and what you’re saying here as fact is categorically wrong. We actually don’t know, and the don’t know part is categorically true among industry and academia.

If you read carefully a big part of my point was we can’t even prove or confirm that the people around you feel emotions, your assumption that your family and friends feel the same emotions as you is as scientifically baseless as your assumption that LLMs don’t feel emotions.