Comment on Has anyone or anything ever passed the Turring Test? If so how and why?
dandi8@fedia.io 2 weeks agoWord predictors don't think any more than a magic 8-ball does.
Comment on Has anyone or anything ever passed the Turring Test? If so how and why?
dandi8@fedia.io 2 weeks agoWord predictors don't think any more than a magic 8-ball does.
Epp@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
Your oversimplification is noted. I assume you believe humans are word predictors, too? Just biological, instead of mechanical. In both cases, using input and electrical signals to create an output.
dandi8@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
No, humans are not word predictors, and my claim is absolutely not an oversimplification.
LLMs are word predictors. No amount of attention heads and backpropagation is going to change that. Scientific researchers agree.
The human brain works in a completely different way to how LLMs do and to conflate the two like you did os disingenuous.
Epp@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
Plants and animals work in completely different ways, but they’re both alive. Just because something works differently doesn’t invalidate it’s results and existence.
If LLM didn’t think, it would be gibberish - just words related to the input. Instead, they are typically logical, sound, relevant responses; often with insight made by extrapolated data in the periphery of the prompt.
What you are expecting is consciousness, which they do not have yet. Thinking, though, yes.
dandi8@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
Except LLM output is largely gibberish. Just confident gibberish. There's a reason we call it "AI slop".
LLM responses are only ever "sound" when they're regurgitating existing information they were trained on. Beyond some simple transformations, they are unable to create original ideas. They very frequently break down on somewhat unique tasks, as evidenced by the ever-prevalent code-slop which is eroding our software.
They don't have a memory of previous conversations (unless you literally copy-paste it into the prompt), they don't learn (Claude "memories" is literally just copy-pasting a summary into the prompt, only automatically). They don't have any "thoughts" of their own between prompts (OpenClaw just keeps prompting them to pretend they are autonomous).
The underlying implementation of "thinking" in LLMs is literally "hallucinate some more text which vaguely looks like thoughts and hope that influences the answer". LLMs are probabilistic models which we figured out how to make so they produce somewhat correct-looking answers at a rate a lityle higher than chance.
Magic 8-balls sometimes give sound responses. Do they think? Where do we draw the line with this interpretation of "thinking"?