It seems that the question revolves around whether these very smart
LLM's solve problems by developing a theory of the problem, something
they could explain as a generic method, or does the solution come with
no such generalized explanation...what we would call intuition in a
human being.
Brent
On 12/24/2024 11:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 12:13 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote:
/> simulating what appears to be reasoning or problem-solving/.
*Simulating? If Einstein was only doing "simulated" thinking when he
came up with General Relativity and not "real" thinking then how would
things be any different? It seems to me that a problem has either been
solved or it has not been, and simulated versus real has nothing to do
with it.
*
/> For instance, an LLM solving a riddle or answering a complex
question does so by leveraging patterns that mimic logical steps
or dependencies, even though it lacks true understanding/
*It's not clear to me how you know "it lacks true understanding".If an
AI can answera question that you cannot, how can you have "true
understanding" of it but the AI does not? Did Einstein have true
understanding of general relativity or onlya simulated understanding?*
/> It feels different and "more intelligent" because this
functional selection imparts a structured response that aligns
with human expectations of reasoning. /
*If the vast majority of human beings think that X is more intelligent
thanY then the simplest and most obvious explanation for that is that
X is more intelligent than Y. And I don't understand how you could say
that an AI it's not intelligent it's just behaving intelligently
because you don't like the way its mind operates, the trouble is you
don't have a deep understanding of how your own mind operates and even
the people at OpenAI only have a hazy understanding of how O3 works
even though they built it. *
/this is far from genuine intelligence or reasoning. LLMs are
bound by their probabilistic nature and lack the ability to
generalize beyond their training data,/
*200 million protein structures were certainly not in any AI's
training data, nor were superhumanly brilliant games of Chess and GO.
The same thing could be said about the Epic AI Frontier Math Test
problems and the ARC benchmark.*
/> or generate higher-order abstractions./
*Ido not believe it's possible to solve _ANY_ of the problems on the
Epic AI Frontier Math Test, problems that even world-class
mathematicians find to be very difficult, without the ability to
generate higher order abstractions. But if I'm wrong about that then I
would be astonished to learn that higher order abstractions are simply
not important because the fact remains that, regardless of the method,
the problem was solved. *
***John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
rrz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NM6jr57u%3D2XoQCh15jsqO%3Di3xGXjEJH2BF1OJPw3EdA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NM6jr57u%3D2XoQCh15jsqO%3Di3xGXjEJH2BF1OJPw3EdA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/31759f6c-37f7-470b-bd6b-08eaf3a3f26c%40gmail.com.
