[close04]

We have difficulty defining “actual understanding”. Humans get a free pass because we assume humans as a species possess this power but if we were to judge based on output alone maybe you couldn’t tell a human from a sufficiently advanced LLM/AI.

So I’ll be handwavey here and say that if “actual understanding” is to an LLM what an LLM is to a bash script, so there’s a mechanism there that doesn’t just follow hardcoded paths, it takes new data and processes it in novel but human like ways to come to a new conclusion if needed, then the author is right, in my opinion.

We don’t know what the reward function is for an AI but AI is trained on so much human work that it probably starts off with the same biases in its understanding and reactions. It feels like there’s something very basic in becoming more independent the more you understand of the world. Animals go through this as they grow too, not just humans (listening to parental authority until they eventually don’t anymore).

Since there is no established consensus on this one the burden is on either party to prove their own side. Just because the author said something first doesn’t mean they need to write a full proof while you get to say “nuh-uh” and that’s enough.

[cwillu]

> Humans get a free pass

They really shouldn't.

Does nobody remember why fizzbuzz was a thing? People who talked a big game while having no actual competence or understanding of the subject matter?

[andrewflnr]

This too, yes. There are many such cases of desire for self-determination separate from "understanding". The question is whether it also goes the other way.

[verve_rat]

> We have difficulty defining “actual understanding”.

Indeed. C.f philosophical zombies and the Chinese room problem.

The idea that some “actual understanding” (or more precisely, the outward appearance of it) needs a mechanism that includes free will is a bold claim.

[andrewflnr]

> Since there is no established consensus on this one the burden is on either party to prove their own side.

Nah. Separate things are separate until proven otherwise.

So much bullshit appears in the form "X is Y" where X and Y are related but distinguishable phenomena. If you really try to pretend that every such phrase deserves serious consideration just because it feels plausible to someone, you drown in nonsense immediately. (Of course what you actually do is only grant that consideration to ideas that feel plausible to you personally, but it's obvious why that's not a good principle, right?) So we have to make all of them justify their existence.

Anyway:

> So I’ll be handwavey here and say that if “actual understanding” is to an LLM what an LLM is to a bash script

No. None of this. Pretty sure this is just an incoherent analogy.

> so there’s a mechanism there that doesn’t just follow hardcoded paths, it takes new data and processes it in novel but human like ways...

You're putting your conclusion in the premise, right there in the open.

> ...then the author is right, in my opinion.

This still doesn't follow from your handwaved premises as far as I can tell.

[close04]

The problem is that if you have nothing g to offer to counter someone’s argument except “nuh-uh” then you have nothing to offer. And yet here you are, insisting to offer nothing and being proud about it.

This is when that “humans get a free pass” bites us all in the ass.

[andrewflnr]

Nothing to offer? I'm the only one here making an actual argument. The author didn't even attempt, and in her defense probably doesn't care enough. You only claimed "handwaving", which was smart because the core of your statement was a series of non-sequiturs starting from a bad analogy. If you have something more to offer than I do, please offer it.