Comment

The underlying issue with an LLM is that there is no “learning”. The model itself doesn’t dynamically change whilst it’s being used.

This article sets out a process that gives the ability to alter the model, by “dialling up” (or down) concepts. In other words, it’s changing the balance of the weight of concepts across the whole model.

Altering one concept is hardly “learning”, especially since it’s being done externally by researchers, but it’s a start.

A much larger problem is that the energy consumption is several orders of magnitude larger than that of our brain. I’m not convinced that we have enough energy to make a standalone “AI”.

What machine learning actually gave us is the ability to automatically improve a digital model of things, like weather prediction, something that took hours on a supercomputer to give you a week of forecast, now can be achieved on a laptop in minutes with a much longer range and accuracy. Machine learning made that possible.

An LLM is attempting the same thing with human language. It’s tantalising, but ultimately I think the idea applied to language to create “AI” is doomed.

source

Sort:hotnew top

dsemy@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

A much larger problem is that the energy consumption is several orders of magnitude larger than that of our brain. I’m not convinced that we have enough energy to make a standalone “AI”.

This is a major issue I have with basically anyone who talks about current “AI” systems - they’re clearly not even close to AI, as they require an extreme amount of energy and data to perform tasks which would be trivial to an actual brain. They seem to lack any ability to comprehend their input, only mimicking it through brute force, which is only feasible since computers got fast enough and we can currently keep up with the energy demands.

source
- GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  AI does not mean artificial brain or anything similar. It’s a very broad term that’s been in use for about 70 years now.
  
  Pac Man has AI.
  
  source
  - dsemy@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Obviously I’m not referring to that, but to what large tech companies call AI. And they are in fact trying to convince people these AI systems they are developing will soon be clever enough to be considered general AI.
    
    source
Paragone@beehaw.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
To the best of my knowledge, back-propagation IS learning, whether it’s happening in a neural-net on a chip, or whether we’re doing it, through feedback, & altering our understanding ( so both hard-logic & our wetware use the method for learning, though we use a rather sloppy implimentation of it. )

& altering the relative-significances of concepts IS learning.

( I’m not commenting on whether the new-relation-between-those-concepts is wrong or right, only on the mechanism )

so, I can’t understand your position.

Please don’t deem my comment worthy of answering: I’m only putting this here for the record, is all.

Everybody can downvote my comment into oblivion, & everything in the world’ll still be fine.

source
- vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Back propagation happens during the creation of the model, not after it’s deployed.
  
  source