Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by claytongulick 38 days ago
My impression is that the fundamental issue is that LLMs attempt to extract reasoning (executive execution) from data (relationship between tokens).

There's an open question about whether this is theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem like it to me.

Human generated data is an effect of reasoning. Attempting to extract executive function from it is kind of like taking an anti-derivative of a function.

This has always seemed like the root of hallucinations to me. It sort of follows the parallels to lossy compression that a lot of people draw. You're extracting some characteristics by observing the relationship between tokens, and then trying to argue that those characteristics are equivalent to the thing that generated the original tokens.

Surely there's some sort of overlap there, but viewed that way, it seems obvious that more and more parameters and scaling won't solve the fundamental problem. There's only so much meaning you can extract from token relationships.

It's like trying to derive the shape of a flame from the smoke it produces.

The original intelligence that created those tokens was driven by a whole universe of inputs, from hormones to starlight to gravity, not to mention all of the strange things about consciousness and parapsychology that is so poorly understood.

The machines are definitely useful for a certain class of tasks - those that don't require much executive function, and the useful work mostly involves pattern matching.

The problem is, we seem to be mistaking effect for cause and imagining that these things have greater capabilities than they'll ever posess.

The investors that don't understand this are indeed going to learn a bitter lesson.

1 comments

>The original intelligence that created those tokens was driven by a whole universe of inputs, from hormones to starlight to gravity

Still inputs, that in the end changed something about synapses and their activation. And whether doesn't have a strong enough local effect to be material to the those operations, can be ignored too. E.g. gravity might kill you via a fall or a tide drowning you, but might have zero influence in your thinking at the brain operation level, aside from some influence that can be expressed in weights and such.

> but might have zero influence in your thinking at the brain operation level

Most of the people that I follow that research this stuff at the doctoral level say that they (and modern science) have very little idea about how consciousness works, the mind, and its relationship to the physical parts of the brain.

We know about a lot of relationships, we can damage parts of the brain and see that damage expressed through changed behavior, but there appears to be far more to it than just a wet neural network of synapses and neurotransmitters that can be accurately modeled with a set of floating point numbers.

Also, as an aside, gravity plays a much larger role in how the brain operates than may be immediately obvious [1].

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9650717/

The gravity in the paper, as far as I can see, is about the influence of microgravity (e.g. much much smaller than regular Earth gravity) influence in blood circulation, bodily fluids etc, and as such on sleep, breathing, heart function, and other such aspects.

Not about whether gravity affects the synapses and neurotransmitters in their regular function.

We know of course that e.g. bad sleep or lack of water affects the brain too, as do many other factors. The effects of microgravity studied there are of similar nature.

My argument wasn't that such a lack of gravity, or such other factors, can't affect it in that sense, but that it doesn't play a role on the actual mechanics of synapses and neurotransmitters (in other works, they could be modelled without it).

Not sure if you read the same paper I did? From the abstract:

"Research over the past decade has demonstrated two co-occurring patterns of spaceflight effects on the brain and behavior: dysfunction and adaptive plasticity. Evidence indicates the spaceflight environment induces adverse effects on the brain, including intracranial fluid shifts, gray matter changes, and white matter declines. Past work also suggests that the spaceflight environment induces adaptive neural effects such as sensory reweighting and neural compensation."

But that's just a single example. The effects of gravity (or lack thereof) on the brain are widely studied, it's pretty easy to find.

Besides, that's all sort of missing the point. I chose gravity as an example of a "huh, I never really thought about that" thing that affects cognition to illustrate the point that there are a gazillion things that impact human cognition, from cat parasites [1] to prescription eyeglasses [2] not to mention all the obvious things like gut health, diet and sleep.

Our brains and bodies have an essentially infinite number of inputs that affect our reasoning - I don't think this is practical, or even possible, to model - and I don't think you can achieve human level reasoning without it.

You can't separate the package from the wrapping when dealing with the human mind. Our biology is our cognition.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1635495/

[2] https://mindeye.com/eye-opener-prescription-glasses-can-affe...