There’s a thought experiment that challenges the concept of cognition, called The Chinese Room. What it essentially postulates is a conversation between two people, one of whom is speaking Chinese and getting responses in Chinese. And the first speaker wonders “Does my conversation partner really understand what I’m saying or am I just getting elaborate stock answers from a big library of pre-defined replies?”
The LLM is literally a Chinese Room. And one way we can know this is through these interactions. The machine isn’t analyzing the fundamental meaning of what I’m saying, it is simply mapping the words I’ve input onto a big catalog of responses and giving me a standard output. In this case, the problem the machine is running into is a legacy meme about people miscounting the number of "r"s in the word Strawberry. So “2” is the stock response it knows via the meme reference, even though a much simpler and dumber machine that was designed to handle this basic input question could have come up with the answer faster and more accurately.
When you hear people complain about how the LLM “wasn’t made for this”, what they’re really complaining about is their own shitty methodology. They build a glorified card catalog. A device that can only take inputs, feed them through a massive library of responses, and sift out the highest probability answer without actually knowing what the inputs or outputs signify cognitively.
Even if you want to argue that having a natural language search engine is useful (damn, wish we had a tool that did exactly this back in August of 1996, amirite?), the implementation of the current iteration of these tools is dogshit because the developers did a dogshit job of sanitizing and rationalizing their library of data. Also, incidentally, why Deepseek was running laps around OpenAI and Gemini as of last year.
Imagine asking a librarian “What was happening in Los Angeles in the Summer of 1989?” and that person fetching you back a stack of history textbooks, a stack of Sci-Fi screenplays, a stack of regional newspapers, and a stack of Iron-Man comic books all given equal weight? Imagine hearing the plot of the Terminator and Escape from LA intercut with local elections and the Loma Prieta earthquake.
You’ve missed something about the Chinese Room. The solution to the Chinese Room riddle is that it is not the person in the room but rather the room itself that is communicating with you. The fact that there’s a person there is irrelevant, and they could be replaced with a speaker or computer terminal.
Put differently, it’s not an indictment of LLMs that they are merely Chinese Rooms, but rather one should be impressed that the Chinese Room is so capable despite being a completely deterministic machine.
If one day we discover that the human brain works on much simpler principles than we once thought, would that make humans any less valuable? It should be deeply troubling to us that LLMs can do so much while the mathematics behind them are so simple. Arguments that because LLMs are just scaled-up autocomplete they surely can’t be very good at anything are not comforting to me at all.
This.
I often see people shitting on AI as “fancy autocomplete” or joking about how they get basic things incorrect like this post but completely discount how incredibly fucking capable they are in every domain that actually matters. That’s what we should be worried about… what does it matter that it doesn’t “work the same” if it still accomplishes the vast majority of the same things? The fact that we can get something that even approximates logic and reasoning ability from a deterministic system is terrifying on implications alone.
First, an LLM can easily write a program to calculate the number of rs. If you ask an LLM to do this, you will get the code back.
But the website ChatGPT.com has no way of executing this code, even if it was generated.
The second explanation is how LLMs work. They work on the word (technically token, but think word) level. They don’t see letters. The AI behind it literally can only see words. The way it generates output is it starts typing words, and then guesses what word is most likely to come next. So it literally does not know how many rs are in strawberry. The impressive part is how good this “guessing what word comes next” is at answering more complex questions.
ChatGPT used to actually do this. But they removed that feature for whatever reason. Now the server that the LLM runs on doesn’t isn’t provide the LLM a Python terminal, so the LLM can’t query it
It’s a statistical model. It cannot synthesize information or problem solve, only show you a rough average of it’s library of inputs graphed by proximity to your input.
Congrats, you’ve discovered reductionism. The human brain also doesn’t know things, as it’s composed of electrical synapses made of molecules that obey the laws of physics and direct one’s mouth to make words in response to signals that come from the ears.
Not saying LLMs don’t know things, but your argument as to why they don’t know things has no merit.
The LLM isn’t aware of its own limitations in this regard. The specific problem of getting an LLM to know what characters a token comprises has not been the focus of training. It’s a totally different kind of error than other hallucinations, it’s almost entirely orthogonal, but other hallucinations are much more important to solve, whereas being able to count the number of letters in a word or add numbers together is not very important, since as you point out, there are already programs that can do that.
At the moment, you can compare this perhaps to the Paris in the the Spring illusion. Why don’t people know to double-check the number of 'the’s in a sentence? They could just use their fingers to block out adjacent words and read each word in isolation. They must be idiots and we shouldn’t trust humans in any domain.
The most convincing arguments that llms are like humans aren’t that llm’s are good, but that humans are just unrefrigerated meat and personhood is a delusion.
Because LLMs operate at the token level, I think it would be a more fair comparison with humans to ask why humans can’t produce the IPA spelling words they can say, /nɔr kæn ðeɪ ˈizəli rid θɪŋz ˈrɪtən ˈpjʊrli ɪn aɪ pi ˈeɪ/ despite the fact that it should be simple to – they understand the sounds after all. I’d be impressed if somebody could do this too! But that most people can’t shouldn’t really move you to think humans must be fundamentally stupid because of this one curious artifact. Maybe they are fundamentall stupid for other reasons, but this one thing is quite unrelated.
why humans can’t produce the IPA spelling words they can say, /nɔr kæn ðeɪ ˈizəli rid θɪŋz ˈrɪtən ˈpjʊrli ɪn aɪ pi ˈeɪ/ despite the fact that it should be simple to – they understand the sounds after all
That’s just access to the right keyboard interface. Humans can and do produce those spellings with additional effort or advanced tool sets.
humans must be fundamentally stupid because of this one curious artifact.
Humans turns oatmeal into essays via a curios lump of muscle is an impressive enough trick on its face.
LLMs have 95% of the work of human intelligence handled for them and still stumble on the last bits.
I mean, among people who are proficient with IPA, they still struggle to read whole sentences written entirely in IPA. Similarly, people who speak and read chinese struggle to read entire sentences written in pinyin. I’m not saying people can’t do it, just that it’s much less natural for us (even though it doesn’t really seem like it ought to be.)
I agree that LLMs are not as bright as they look, but my point here is that this particular thing – their strange inconsistency understanding what letters correspond to the tokens they produce – specifically shouldn’t be taken as evidence for or against LLMs being capable in any other context.
Similarly, people who speak and read chinese struggle to read entire sentences written in pinyin.
Because pinyin was implemented by the Russians to teach Chinese to people who use Cyrillic characters. Would make as much sense to call out people who can’t use Katakana.
More like calling out people who can’t read romaji, I think. It’s just not a natural encoding for most Japanese people, even if they can work it out if you give them time.
Ah! But you can skip all that messy biology abd stuff i don’t understand that’s probably not important, abd just think of it as a classical computer running an x86 architecture, and checkmate, liberal my argument owns you now!
Its not a fucking riddle, it’s a koan/thought experiment.
It’s questioning what ‘communication’ fundamentally is, and what knowledge fundamentally is.
It’s not even the first thing to do this. Military theory was cracking away at the ‘communication’ thing a century before, and the nature of knowledge has discourse going back thousands of years.
You’re right, I shouldn’t have called it a riddle. Still, being a fucking thought experiment doesn’t preclude having a solution. Theseus’ ship is another famous fucking thought experiment, which has also been solved.
That’s not even remotely the point. Yes there are nany valid solutions. The point isn’t to solve it, but what how you solve it says about and clarifies your ideas.
I suppose if you’re going to be postmodernist about it, but that’s beyond my ability to understand. The only complete solution I know to Theseus’ Ship is “the universe is agnostic as to which ship is the original. Identity of a composite thing is not part of the laws of physics.” Not sure why you put scare quotes around it.
as I said, postmodernist lol. I’m coming from the absolutist angle.
I’ll admit though that it also functions to tell you about how someone thinks about the universe. But this is true of any question which has one right answer.
No, this isn’t what ‘agents’ do, ‘agents’ just interact with other programs. So like move your mouse around to buy stuff, using the same methods as everything else.
Its like a fancy diversely useful diversely catastrophic hallucination prone API.
If that other program is, say, a python terminal then can’t LLMs be trained to use agents to solve problems outside their area of expertise?
I just tested chatgpt to write a python program to return the frequency of letters in a string, then asked it for the number of L’s in the longest placename in Europe.
‘’‘’
String to analyze
text = “Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch”
Convert to lowercase to count both ‘L’ and ‘l’ as the same
text = text.lower()
Dictionary to store character frequencies
frequency = {}
Count characters
for char in text:
if char in frequency:
frequency[char] += 1
else:
frequency[char] = 1
in what context? LLMs are extremely good at bridging from natural language to API calls. I dare say it’s one of the few use cases that have decisively landed on “yes, this is something LLMs are actually good at.” Maybe not five nines of reliability, but language itself doesn’t have five nines of reliability.
But an LLM as a node in a framework that can call a python library
Isn’t how these systems are configured. They’re just not that sophisticated.
So much of what Sam Alton is doing is brute force, which is why he thinks he needs a $1T investment in new power to build his next iteration model.
Deepseek gets at the edges of this through their partitioned model. But you’re still asking a lot for a machine to intuit whether a query can be solved with some exigent python query the system has yet to identify.
It doesn’t scale to AGI but it does reduce hallucinations
It has to scale to AGI, because a central premise of AGI is a system that can improve itself.
It just doesn’t match the OpenAI development model, which is to scrape and sort data hoping the Internet already has the solution to every problem.
The claim is not that all LLMs are agents, but rather that agents (which incorporate an LLM as one of their key components) are more powerful than an LLM on its own.
We don’t know how far away we are from recursive self-improvement. We might already be there to be honest; how much of the job of an LLM researcher can already be automated? It’s unclear if there’s some ceiling to what a recursively-improved GPT4.x-w/e can do though; maybe there’s a key hypothesis it will never formulate on the quest for self-improvement.
The only thing worse than the ai shills are the tech bro mansplainaitions of how “ai works” when they are utterly uninformed of the actual science. Please stop making educated guesses for others and typing them out in a teacher’s voice. It’s extremely aggravating
Yes but have you considered that it agreed with me so now i need to defend it to the death against you horrible apes, no matter the allegation or terrain?
That’s a very long answer to my snarky little comment :) I appreciate it though. Personally, I find LLMs interesting and I’ve spent quite a while playing with them. But after all they are like you described, an interconnected catalogue of random stuff, with some hallucinations to fill the gaps. They are NOT a reliable source of information or general knowledge or even safe to use as an “assistant”. The marketing of LLMs as being fit for such purposes is the problem. Humans tend to turn off their brains and to blindly trust technology, and the tech companies are encouraging them to do so by making false promises.
You might just love Blind Sight. Here, they’re trying to decide if an alien life form is sentient or a Chinese Room:
“Tell me more about your cousins,” Rorschach sent.
“Our cousins lie about the family tree,” Sascha replied, “with nieces and nephews and Neandertals. We do not like annoying cousins.”
“We’d like to know about this tree.”
Sascha muted the channel and gave us a look that said Could it be any more obvious? “It couldn’t have parsed that. There were three linguistic ambiguities in there. It just ignored them.”
“Well, it asked for clarification,” Bates pointed out.
“It asked a follow-up question. Different thing entirely.”
Bates was still out of the loop. Szpindel was starting to get it, though… .
Blindsight is such a great novel. It has not one, not two but three great sci-fi concepts rolled into one book.
One is artificial intelligence (the ship’s captain is an AI), the second is alien life so vastly different it appears incomprehensible to human minds. And last but not least, and the most wild, vampires as a evolutionary branch of humanity that died out and has been recreated in the future.
Also, the extremely post-cyberpunk posthumans, and each member of the crew is a different extremely capable kind of fucked up model of what we might become, with the protagonist personifying the genre of horror that it is, while still being occasionally hilarious.
Despite being fundamentally a cosmic horror novel, and relentlessly math-in-the-back-of-the-book hard scifi it does what all the best cyberpunk does and shamelessly flirts with the supernatural at every opportunity. The sequel doubles down on this, and while not quite as good overall (still exceptionally good, but harder to follow) each of the characters explores a novel and sweet+sad+horrifying kind of love.
Characters in the sequel include a hive-mind of post-science innovation monks, a straight up witch who charges their monastery at the head of a zombie army, and a plotline about finding what the monks think might be god. And that first scene, which is absolute fire btw.
Primary themes include… Well the bit of exposition about needing to ‘crawl off one mountain and cross a valley to reach higher peaks of understanding’, and coping as a mostly baseline human surrounded by superintelligences, ‘sufficiently advanced technology’, etc.
My a favorite part of the vampire thing is how they died out. Turns out vampires start seizing when trying to visually process 90° angles, and humans love building shit like that (not to mention a cross is littered with them). It’s so mundane an extinction I’d almost believe it.
Imagine asking a librarian “What was happening in Los Angeles in the Summer of 1989?” and that person fetching you … That’s modern LLMs in a nutshell.
I agree, but I think you’re still being too generous to LLMs. A librarian who fetched all those things would at least understand the question. An LLM is just trying to generate words that might logically follow the words you used.
IMO, one of the key ideas with the Chinese Room is that there’s an assumption that the computer / book in the Chinese Room experiment has infinite capacity in some way. So, no matter what symbols are passed to it, it can come up with an appropriate response. But, obviously, while LLMs are incredibly huge, they can never be infinite. As a result, they can often be “fooled” when they’re given input that semantically similar to a meme, joke or logic puzzle. The vast majority of the training data that matches the input is the meme, or joke, or logic puzzle. LLMs can’t reason so they can’t distinguish between “this is just a rephrasing of that meme” and “this is similar to that meme but distinct in an important way”.
Can you explain the difference between understanding the question and generating the words that might logically follow? I’m aware that it’s essentially a more powerful version of how auto-correct works, but why should we assume that shows some lack of understanding at a deep level somehow?
Can you explain the difference between understanding the question and generating the words that might logically follow?
I mean, it’s pretty obvious. Take someone like Rowan Atkinson whose death has been misreported multiple times. If you ask a computer system “Is Rowan Atkinson Dead?” you want it to understand the question and give you a yes/no response based on actual facts in its database. A well designed program would know to prioritize recent reports as being more authoritative than older ones. It would know which sources to trust, and which not to trust.
An LLM will just generate text that is statistically likely to follow the question. Because there have been many hoaxes about his death, it might use that as a basis and generate a response indicating he’s dead. But, because those hoaxes have also been debunked many times, it might use that as a basis instead and generate a response indicating that he’s alive.
So, if he really did just die and it was reported in reliable fact-checked news sources, the LLM might say “No, Rowan Atkinson is alive, his death was reported via a viral video, but that video was a hoax.”
but why should we assume that shows some lack of understanding
Because we know what “understanding” is, and that it isn’t simply finding words that are likely to appear following the chain of words up to that point.
Just if you were a hater that would be cool with me. I don’t like “ai” either. The explanations you give are misleading at best. It’s embarrassing. You fail to realise the fact that NOBODY KNOWS why or how they work. It’s just extreme folly to pretend you know these things. It’s been observed to reason novel ideas which is why it is confusing for scientists that work with them why it happens. It’s not just data lookup. You think entire Web and history of man fits in 8 gb? You are just educating people with just your basic rage filled opinion, not actual answers. You are angry at the discovery, we get that. You don’t believe in it. Ok. But don’t say you know what it does and how, or what openai does behind its closed doors. It’s just embarrassing. We are working on papers to try to explain the emergent phenomenon we discovered in neural nets that make it seem like it can reason and output mostly correct answers to difficult questions. It’s not in the “data” and it looks for it. You could just start learning if you want to be an educator in the field.
The Rowan Atkinson thing isn’t misunderstanding, it’s understanding but having been misled. I’ve literally done this exact thing myself, say something was a hoax (because in the past it was) but then it turned out there was newer info I didn’t know about. I’m not convinced LLMs as they exist today don’t prioritize sources – if trained naively, sure, but these days they can, for instance, integrate search results, and can update on new information. If the LLM can answer correctly only after checking a web search, and I can do the same only after checking a web search, that’s a score of 1-1.
because we know what “understanding” is
Really? Who claims to know what understanding is? Do you think it’s possible there can ever be an AI (even if different from an LLM) which is capable of “understanding?” How can you tell?
I’m not convinced LLMs as they exist today don’t prioritize sources – if trained naively, sure, but these days they can, for instance, integrate search results, and can update on new information.
Well, it includes the text from the search results in the prompt, it’s not actually updating any internal state (the network weights), a new “conversation” starts from scratch.
Yes that’s right, LLMs are context-free. They don’t have internal state. When I say “update on new information” I really mean “when new information is available in its context window, its response takes that into account.”
There’s a thought experiment that challenges the concept of cognition, called The Chinese Room. What it essentially postulates is a conversation between two people, one of whom is speaking Chinese and getting responses in Chinese. And the first speaker wonders “Does my conversation partner really understand what I’m saying or am I just getting elaborate stock answers from a big library of pre-defined replies?”
The LLM is literally a Chinese Room. And one way we can know this is through these interactions. The machine isn’t analyzing the fundamental meaning of what I’m saying, it is simply mapping the words I’ve input onto a big catalog of responses and giving me a standard output. In this case, the problem the machine is running into is a legacy meme about people miscounting the number of "r"s in the word Strawberry. So “2” is the stock response it knows via the meme reference, even though a much simpler and dumber machine that was designed to handle this basic input question could have come up with the answer faster and more accurately.
When you hear people complain about how the LLM “wasn’t made for this”, what they’re really complaining about is their own shitty methodology. They build a glorified card catalog. A device that can only take inputs, feed them through a massive library of responses, and sift out the highest probability answer without actually knowing what the inputs or outputs signify cognitively.
Even if you want to argue that having a natural language search engine is useful (damn, wish we had a tool that did exactly this back in August of 1996, amirite?), the implementation of the current iteration of these tools is dogshit because the developers did a dogshit job of sanitizing and rationalizing their library of data. Also, incidentally, why Deepseek was running laps around OpenAI and Gemini as of last year.
Imagine asking a librarian “What was happening in Los Angeles in the Summer of 1989?” and that person fetching you back a stack of history textbooks, a stack of Sci-Fi screenplays, a stack of regional newspapers, and a stack of Iron-Man comic books all given equal weight? Imagine hearing the plot of the Terminator and Escape from LA intercut with local elections and the Loma Prieta earthquake.
That’s modern LLMs in a nutshell.
Can we say for certain that human brains aren’t sophisticated Chinese rooms…
Yes.
You’ve missed something about the Chinese Room. The solution to the Chinese Room riddle is that it is not the person in the room but rather the room itself that is communicating with you. The fact that there’s a person there is irrelevant, and they could be replaced with a speaker or computer terminal.
Put differently, it’s not an indictment of LLMs that they are merely Chinese Rooms, but rather one should be impressed that the Chinese Room is so capable despite being a completely deterministic machine.
If one day we discover that the human brain works on much simpler principles than we once thought, would that make humans any less valuable? It should be deeply troubling to us that LLMs can do so much while the mathematics behind them are so simple. Arguments that because LLMs are just scaled-up autocomplete they surely can’t be very good at anything are not comforting to me at all.
This. I often see people shitting on AI as “fancy autocomplete” or joking about how they get basic things incorrect like this post but completely discount how incredibly fucking capable they are in every domain that actually matters. That’s what we should be worried about… what does it matter that it doesn’t “work the same” if it still accomplishes the vast majority of the same things? The fact that we can get something that even approximates logic and reasoning ability from a deterministic system is terrifying on implications alone.
Why doesn’t the LLM know to write (and run) a program to calculate the number of characters?
I feel like I’m missing something fundamental.
You didn’t get good answers so I’ll explain.
First, an LLM can easily write a program to calculate the number of
rs. If you ask an LLM to do this, you will get the code back.But the website ChatGPT.com has no way of executing this code, even if it was generated.
The second explanation is how LLMs work. They work on the word (technically token, but think word) level. They don’t see letters. The AI behind it literally can only see words. The way it generates output is it starts typing words, and then guesses what word is most likely to come next. So it literally does not know how many
rs are in strawberry. The impressive part is how good this “guessing what word comes next” is at answering more complex questions.But why can’t “query the python terminal” be trained into the LLM. It just needs some UI training.
ChatGPT used to actually do this. But they removed that feature for whatever reason. Now the server that the LLM runs on doesn’t isn’t provide the LLM a Python terminal, so the LLM can’t query it
It doesn’t know things.
It’s a statistical model. It cannot synthesize information or problem solve, only show you a rough average of it’s library of inputs graphed by proximity to your input.
Congrats, you’ve discovered reductionism. The human brain also doesn’t know things, as it’s composed of electrical synapses made of molecules that obey the laws of physics and direct one’s mouth to make words in response to signals that come from the ears.
Not saying LLMs don’t know things, but your argument as to why they don’t know things has no merit.
Oh, that’s why everything else you said seemed a bit off.
sorry, I only have a regular brain, haven’t updated to the metaphysical edition :/
The LLM isn’t aware of its own limitations in this regard. The specific problem of getting an LLM to know what characters a token comprises has not been the focus of training. It’s a totally different kind of error than other hallucinations, it’s almost entirely orthogonal, but other hallucinations are much more important to solve, whereas being able to count the number of letters in a word or add numbers together is not very important, since as you point out, there are already programs that can do that.
At the moment, you can compare this perhaps to the Paris in the the Spring illusion. Why don’t people know to double-check the number of 'the’s in a sentence? They could just use their fingers to block out adjacent words and read each word in isolation. They must be idiots and we shouldn’t trust humans in any domain.
The most convincing arguments that llms are like humans aren’t that llm’s are good, but that humans are just unrefrigerated meat and personhood is a delusion.
This might well be true yeah. But that’s still good news for AI companies who want to replace humans – bar’s lower than they thought.
And why we should fight them tooth and nail, yes.
They’re not just replacing us, they’re making us suck more so it’s an easy sell.
Well yeah. You’re preaching to the choir lol.
I’d be more impressed if the room could tell me how many "r"s are in Strawberry inside five minutes.
Human biology, famous for being simple and straightforward.
Because LLMs operate at the token level, I think it would be a more fair comparison with humans to ask why humans can’t produce the IPA spelling words they can say, /nɔr kæn ðeɪ ˈizəli rid θɪŋz ˈrɪtən ˈpjʊrli ɪn aɪ pi ˈeɪ/ despite the fact that it should be simple to – they understand the sounds after all. I’d be impressed if somebody could do this too! But that most people can’t shouldn’t really move you to think humans must be fundamentally stupid because of this one curious artifact. Maybe they are fundamentall stupid for other reasons, but this one thing is quite unrelated.
That’s just access to the right keyboard interface. Humans can and do produce those spellings with additional effort or advanced tool sets.
Humans turns oatmeal into essays via a curios lump of muscle is an impressive enough trick on its face.
LLMs have 95% of the work of human intelligence handled for them and still stumble on the last bits.
I mean, among people who are proficient with IPA, they still struggle to read whole sentences written entirely in IPA. Similarly, people who speak and read chinese struggle to read entire sentences written in pinyin. I’m not saying people can’t do it, just that it’s much less natural for us (even though it doesn’t really seem like it ought to be.)
I agree that LLMs are not as bright as they look, but my point here is that this particular thing – their strange inconsistency understanding what letters correspond to the tokens they produce – specifically shouldn’t be taken as evidence for or against LLMs being capable in any other context.
Because pinyin was implemented by the Russians to teach Chinese to people who use Cyrillic characters. Would make as much sense to call out people who can’t use Katakana.
More like calling out people who can’t read romaji, I think. It’s just not a natural encoding for most Japanese people, even if they can work it out if you give them time.
Ah! But you can skip all that messy biology abd stuff i don’t understand that’s probably not important, abd just think of it as a classical computer running an x86 architecture, and checkmate, liberal my argument owns you now!
Its not a fucking riddle, it’s a koan/thought experiment.
It’s questioning what ‘communication’ fundamentally is, and what knowledge fundamentally is.
It’s not even the first thing to do this. Military theory was cracking away at the ‘communication’ thing a century before, and the nature of knowledge has discourse going back thousands of years.
You’re right, I shouldn’t have called it a riddle. Still, being a fucking thought experiment doesn’t preclude having a solution. Theseus’ ship is another famous fucking thought experiment, which has also been solved.
‘A solution’
That’s not even remotely the point. Yes there are nany valid solutions. The point isn’t to solve it, but what how you solve it says about and clarifies your ideas.
I suppose if you’re going to be postmodernist about it, but that’s beyond my ability to understand. The only complete solution I know to Theseus’ Ship is “the universe is agnostic as to which ship is the original. Identity of a composite thing is not part of the laws of physics.” Not sure why you put scare quotes around it.
For different value sets and use cases, dear.
as I said, postmodernist lol. I’m coming from the absolutist angle.
I’ll admit though that it also functions to tell you about how someone thinks about the universe. But this is true of any question which has one right answer.
The human approach could be to write a (python) program to count the number of characters precisely.
When people refer to agents, is this what they are supposed to be doing? Is it done in a generic fashion or will it fall over with complexity?
No, this isn’t what ‘agents’ do, ‘agents’ just interact with other programs. So like move your mouse around to buy stuff, using the same methods as everything else.
Its like a fancy diversely useful diversely catastrophic hallucination prone API.
‘agents’ just interact with other programs.
If that other program is, say, a python terminal then can’t LLMs be trained to use agents to solve problems outside their area of expertise?
I just tested chatgpt to write a python program to return the frequency of letters in a string, then asked it for the number of L’s in the longest placename in Europe.
‘’‘’
String to analyze
text = “Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch”
Convert to lowercase to count both ‘L’ and ‘l’ as the same
text = text.lower()
Dictionary to store character frequencies
frequency = {}
Count characters
for char in text: if char in frequency: frequency[char] += 1 else: frequency[char] = 1
Show the number of 'l’s
print(“Number of 'l’s:”, frequency.get(‘l’, 0))
‘’’
I was impressed until
Output
Number of 'l’s: 16
Yeah it turns out to be useless!
That’s not how LLMs operate, no. They aggregate raw text and sift for popular answers to common queries.
ChatGPT is one step removed from posting your question to Quora.
But an LLM as a node in a framework that can call a python library should be able to count the number of Rs in strawberry.
It doesn’t scale to AGI but it does reduce hallucinations.
You’d still be better off starting with a 50s language processor, then grafting on some API calls.
in what context? LLMs are extremely good at bridging from natural language to API calls. I dare say it’s one of the few use cases that have decisively landed on “yes, this is something LLMs are actually good at.” Maybe not five nines of reliability, but language itself doesn’t have five nines of reliability.
Isn’t how these systems are configured. They’re just not that sophisticated.
So much of what Sam Alton is doing is brute force, which is why he thinks he needs a $1T investment in new power to build his next iteration model.
Deepseek gets at the edges of this through their partitioned model. But you’re still asking a lot for a machine to intuit whether a query can be solved with some exigent python query the system has yet to identify.
It has to scale to AGI, because a central premise of AGI is a system that can improve itself.
It just doesn’t match the OpenAI development model, which is to scrape and sort data hoping the Internet already has the solution to every problem.
The claim is not that all LLMs are agents, but rather that agents (which incorporate an LLM as one of their key components) are more powerful than an LLM on its own.
We don’t know how far away we are from recursive self-improvement. We might already be there to be honest; how much of the job of an LLM researcher can already be automated? It’s unclear if there’s some ceiling to what a recursively-improved GPT4.x-w/e can do though; maybe there’s a key hypothesis it will never formulate on the quest for self-improvement.
The only thing worse than the ai shills are the tech bro mansplainaitions of how “ai works” when they are utterly uninformed of the actual science. Please stop making educated guesses for others and typing them out in a teacher’s voice. It’s extremely aggravating
Yes but have you considered that it agreed with me so now i need to defend it to the death against you horrible apes, no matter the allegation or terrain?
That’s a very long answer to my snarky little comment :) I appreciate it though. Personally, I find LLMs interesting and I’ve spent quite a while playing with them. But after all they are like you described, an interconnected catalogue of random stuff, with some hallucinations to fill the gaps. They are NOT a reliable source of information or general knowledge or even safe to use as an “assistant”. The marketing of LLMs as being fit for such purposes is the problem. Humans tend to turn off their brains and to blindly trust technology, and the tech companies are encouraging them to do so by making false promises.
You might just love Blind Sight. Here, they’re trying to decide if an alien life form is sentient or a Chinese Room:
“Tell me more about your cousins,” Rorschach sent.
“Our cousins lie about the family tree,” Sascha replied, “with nieces and nephews and Neandertals. We do not like annoying cousins.”
“We’d like to know about this tree.”
Sascha muted the channel and gave us a look that said Could it be any more obvious? “It couldn’t have parsed that. There were three linguistic ambiguities in there. It just ignored them.”
“Well, it asked for clarification,” Bates pointed out.
“It asked a follow-up question. Different thing entirely.”
Bates was still out of the loop. Szpindel was starting to get it, though… .
Blindsight is such a great novel. It has not one, not two but three great sci-fi concepts rolled into one book.
One is artificial intelligence (the ship’s captain is an AI), the second is alien life so vastly different it appears incomprehensible to human minds. And last but not least, and the most wild, vampires as a evolutionary branch of humanity that died out and has been recreated in the future.
Also, the extremely post-cyberpunk posthumans, and each member of the crew is a different extremely capable kind of fucked up model of what we might become, with the protagonist personifying the genre of horror that it is, while still being occasionally hilarious.
Despite being fundamentally a cosmic horror novel, and relentlessly math-in-the-back-of-the-book hard scifi it does what all the best cyberpunk does and shamelessly flirts with the supernatural at every opportunity. The sequel doubles down on this, and while not quite as good overall (still exceptionally good, but harder to follow) each of the characters explores a novel and sweet+sad+horrifying kind of love.
Oooh, I didn’t even know it had a sequel!
I wouldn’t say it flirts with the supernatural as much as it’s with one foot into weird fiction, which is where cosmic horror comes from.
Characters in the sequel include a hive-mind of post-science innovation monks, a straight up witch who charges their monastery at the head of a zombie army, and a plotline about finding what the monks think might be god. And that first scene, which is absolute fire btw.
Primary themes include… Well the bit of exposition about needing to ‘crawl off one mountain and cross a valley to reach higher peaks of understanding’, and coping as a mostly baseline human surrounded by superintelligences, ‘sufficiently advanced technology’, etc.
My a favorite part of the vampire thing is how they died out. Turns out vampires start seizing when trying to visually process 90° angles, and humans love building shit like that (not to mention a cross is littered with them). It’s so mundane an extinction I’d almost believe it.
Wait, what was going on in August of '96?
Google Search premiered
I agree, but I think you’re still being too generous to LLMs. A librarian who fetched all those things would at least understand the question. An LLM is just trying to generate words that might logically follow the words you used.
IMO, one of the key ideas with the Chinese Room is that there’s an assumption that the computer / book in the Chinese Room experiment has infinite capacity in some way. So, no matter what symbols are passed to it, it can come up with an appropriate response. But, obviously, while LLMs are incredibly huge, they can never be infinite. As a result, they can often be “fooled” when they’re given input that semantically similar to a meme, joke or logic puzzle. The vast majority of the training data that matches the input is the meme, or joke, or logic puzzle. LLMs can’t reason so they can’t distinguish between “this is just a rephrasing of that meme” and “this is similar to that meme but distinct in an important way”.
Can you explain the difference between understanding the question and generating the words that might logically follow? I’m aware that it’s essentially a more powerful version of how auto-correct works, but why should we assume that shows some lack of understanding at a deep level somehow?
I mean, it’s pretty obvious. Take someone like Rowan Atkinson whose death has been misreported multiple times. If you ask a computer system “Is Rowan Atkinson Dead?” you want it to understand the question and give you a yes/no response based on actual facts in its database. A well designed program would know to prioritize recent reports as being more authoritative than older ones. It would know which sources to trust, and which not to trust.
An LLM will just generate text that is statistically likely to follow the question. Because there have been many hoaxes about his death, it might use that as a basis and generate a response indicating he’s dead. But, because those hoaxes have also been debunked many times, it might use that as a basis instead and generate a response indicating that he’s alive.
So, if he really did just die and it was reported in reliable fact-checked news sources, the LLM might say “No, Rowan Atkinson is alive, his death was reported via a viral video, but that video was a hoax.”
Because we know what “understanding” is, and that it isn’t simply finding words that are likely to appear following the chain of words up to that point.
Just if you were a hater that would be cool with me. I don’t like “ai” either. The explanations you give are misleading at best. It’s embarrassing. You fail to realise the fact that NOBODY KNOWS why or how they work. It’s just extreme folly to pretend you know these things. It’s been observed to reason novel ideas which is why it is confusing for scientists that work with them why it happens. It’s not just data lookup. You think entire Web and history of man fits in 8 gb? You are just educating people with just your basic rage filled opinion, not actual answers. You are angry at the discovery, we get that. You don’t believe in it. Ok. But don’t say you know what it does and how, or what openai does behind its closed doors. It’s just embarrassing. We are working on papers to try to explain the emergent phenomenon we discovered in neural nets that make it seem like it can reason and output mostly correct answers to difficult questions. It’s not in the “data” and it looks for it. You could just start learning if you want to be an educator in the field.
The Rowan Atkinson thing isn’t misunderstanding, it’s understanding but having been misled. I’ve literally done this exact thing myself, say something was a hoax (because in the past it was) but then it turned out there was newer info I didn’t know about. I’m not convinced LLMs as they exist today don’t prioritize sources – if trained naively, sure, but these days they can, for instance, integrate search results, and can update on new information. If the LLM can answer correctly only after checking a web search, and I can do the same only after checking a web search, that’s a score of 1-1.
Really? Who claims to know what understanding is? Do you think it’s possible there can ever be an AI (even if different from an LLM) which is capable of “understanding?” How can you tell?
Well, it includes the text from the search results in the prompt, it’s not actually updating any internal state (the network weights), a new “conversation” starts from scratch.
That’s not true for the commercial ai’s. We don’t know what they are doing
Yes that’s right, LLMs are context-free. They don’t have internal state. When I say “update on new information” I really mean “when new information is available in its context window, its response takes that into account.”
So, what is ‘understanding’?
If you need help, you can look at marx for an answer that still mostly holds up, if your server is an indication of your reading habbits.
oh does he have a treatise on the subject?
He’s said some relevant stuff
nice
Im not sure it supports the argument he’s actually making, but its true and valid here.