|
|
|
|
|
|
by applfanboysbgon
40 days ago
|
|
|
> This isn't up for debate at this point. If by not up for debate, you mean that it is delusional and literally evidence of psychosis to suggest that computer software is doing something it is not programmed to do, you would be correct. Probabilistic analysis can carry you very, very far in doing something that looks like logical inference at the surface level, but it is nonetheless not logical inference. LLM models have been getting increasingly good at factoring in larger and longer contexts and still managing to generate plausibly correct answers, becoming more and more useful all the while, but are still not capable of logical inference. This is why your genius mathematician AGI consciousness stumbles on trivial logic puzzles it has not seen before like the car wash meme. |
|
|
A statistical approximation of logical inference (as vague as I state it) could (and will) very well pass for logical inference, at least for the common people, whose logic skills are far from perfect.
Also, humans are certainly not capable of the perfect logical inference you speak of. And I get the irony of what I'm saying with such certitude. Logic is still framed in axioms that are framed in languages, we'll never truly get there. Ah, but absoluteness gets in the way of practicality.
Yet, here we are with a tool, that is maybe not at its prime yet, that equals and beat many human beings at logical inference on some problems that are pragmatically relevant. Should I say symptoms of logical inference at that point?
As to why LLMs capacity for (apparent) logical inference is only limited to specific use cases, I don't have a clue. But I'd like to argue that, humans are like that too.