Comment on Recent conversations between Dawkins and sentient chat-bot Claudia (Claude)
daannii@lemmy.world 1 day agoNope. We aren’t. Infact humans don’t work like that at all.
It’s actually amazing we ever learned actual probability math since it goes against our nature.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 18 hours ago
Yeah, LLMs are prone to similar biases because they are also bad at conceptualising probability. They’re not calculators, they’re ANNs. They basically operate on dream-logic. Whatever makes sense to you in a dream, is likely to make sense to an LLM. That’s because dreams are a time when you have intelligence without consciousness, like an LLM. You’re super suggestible and you just go with whatever feels right based on your gut instincts. An LLM is a simulation of a person’s gut instincts.
daannii@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Yeah the prefrontal cortex is offline when you dream so you don’t question anything.
Your example is a pretty good analogy. I’m saving it. 👍
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 10 hours ago
Ever notice how you letters don’t work right in dreams? If you look at writing in a dream, you just know what it means without having to analyse the letters. But if you try to study the letters, they swim around like a stable diffusion image. LLMs deal in tokens, not letters. The approximate meaning of each token is learned during the training phase, so the LLM has a gut feeling of how the token should be used. But it doesn’t know how to spell the token, which is why they can’t tell you how many Rs are in the word Strawberry. Asking an LLM about spelling is like asking a dreamer about spelling. There’s no spelling in dreams, just raw meaning.