|
|
|
|
|
|
by kristiandupont
25 days ago
|
|
|
>LLMs-as-AI can only give us probabilistic outputs based on inputs I am not completely sure what you are saying here, but it sounds like a variation of the "it's just a stochastic parrot" argument, which is reductionist. The human brain is also just a bunch neurons firing. |
|
|
To wit:
> Another one is that “stochastic parrot” got picked up and interpreted by other people as a minimization or an insult. It was not meant that way. Other people might be using it that way, but that’s not how I intended it, because it’s just a description of what these systems actually are. To see it as an insult requires either the belief that the large language model is the kind of thing that can take offense, which it isn’t, or that these large language models should be understood as steps toward this grand ideal that I don’t hold of artificial intelligence.
> What I have been doing in many places—the octopus thought experiment, stochastic parrots, the phrase “synthetic text-extruding machines”—it’s all about trying to make vivid to people who aren’t in the business of building language technology what these systems actually do, which is not the same thing as insulting the systems or insulting the people who like the systems.