• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s almost like we can’t make a machine conscious until we know what makes a human conscious, and it’s obvious Emergentism is bullshit because making machines smarter doesn’t make them conscious

    Time to start listening to Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR theory as the evidence piles up - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936

    • V0ldek@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Orch-OR

      Never heard of this thing but just reading through the wiki

      An essential feature of Penrose’s theory is that the choice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly (as are choices following wave function collapse) nor algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a “non-computable” influence embedded in the Planck scale of spacetime geometry.

      Neither randomly nor alorithmically, rather magically. Like really, what the fuck else could you mean by “non-computable” in there that would be distinguishable from magic?

      Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truths, which relates to Penrose’s ideas concerning the three worlds: the physical, the mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In Shadows of the Mind (1994), Penrose briefly indicates that this Platonic world could also include aesthetic and ethical values, but he does not commit to this further hypothesis.

      And this is just crankery with absolutely no mathematical meaning. Also pure mathematical truths are not outside of the physical world, what the fuck would that even mean bro.

      I thought Penrose was a smart physicist, the hell is he doing peddling this.

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        it’s well outside of his ballpark somehow, it’s like how Linus Pauling started all that megadose vitamin horseshit (starting with vit C), it sorta, kinda made a vibe-based shred of sense when you ignore all actual details, but he was hopelessly lost because he was not a biologist. what he had was nobel prize so he had enough cred for people to fall for it. many such cases!

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      You’re right that consciousness and intelligence are not the same. Our language tends to conflate the two.

      However, evolution created consciousness over billions of years by emergent factors and no source of specific direction besides being more successful at reproduction. We can likely get there orders of magnitude faster than evolution could. The big problem would be recognizing it for what it is when it’s here.

    • blakestacey@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The given link contains exactly zero evidence in favor of Orchestrated Objective Reduction — “something interesting observed in vitro using UV spectroscopy” is a far cry from anything having biological relevance, let alone significance for understanding consciousness. And it’s not like Orch-OR deserves the lofty label of theory, anyway; it’s an ill-defined, under-specified, ad hoc proposal to throw out quantum mechanics and replace it with something else.

      The fact that programs built to do spicy autocomplete turn out to do spicy autocomplete has, as far as I can tell, zero implications for any theory of consciousness one way or the other.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Bro the main objection to Orch-OR is that the brain is too warm for Quatnum stuff to happen there, and then they found Quantum stuff in the brain… So… not sure how it’s not suggestive of the reality of Orch-OR

        Edit: Btw, I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that Orch-OR is “Trying to throw out Quantum Mechanics and replace it with something else”, considering that it’s dependent upon Quantum Mechanics, and we have demonstrated that “Quantum Biology” is a thing in plants - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation/ and in birds - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01725-1

        So why not the brain?

        • blakestacey@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Kludging an “objective reduction” process into the dynamics is throwing out quantum mechanics and replacing it with something else. And because Orch-OR is not quantum mechanics, every observation that a quantum effect might be biologically important somewhere is irrelevant. Orch-OR isn’t “quantum biology”, it’s pixie-dust biology.

        • self@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          it’s very important to me that you don’t type the words “Blake Stacey” into a search engine while explaining quote unquote Quatnum stuff to them

  • vin@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Though making an unreliable intern is amazing and was impossible 5 years ago…

      • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I mean, it’s not shit at everything; it can be quite useful in the right context (GitHub Copilot is a prime example). Still, it doesn’t surprise me that these first-party LLM benchmarks are full of smoke and mirrors.

          • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That GitHub Copilot and friends are useful? I would argue that their utility is rather subjective, but there are indications that it improves developer productivity.

            I’m unsure if you’ve used tools like GH Copilot before, but it primarily operates through “completions” (“spicy autocorrect” in its truest form) rather than a chatbot-like interface. It’s mostly good for filling out boilerplate and code that has a single obvious solution; not game-changing intelligence by any means, but useful in relieving the programmer of various menial tasks.

            May I ask, what evidence are you hoping to see in particular?

  • Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    From Re-evaluating GPT-4’s bar exam performance (linked in the article):

    First, although GPT-4’s UBE score nears the 90th percentile when examining approximate conversions from February administrations of the Illinois Bar Exam, these estimates are heavily skewed towards repeat test-takers who failed the July administration and score significantly lower than the general test-taking population.

    Ohhh, that is sneaky!

    • Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn’t impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say

      Moreover, although the UBE is a closed-book exam for humans, GPT-4’s huge training corpus largely distilled in its parameters means that it can effectively take the UBE “open-book”

      And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn’t even get a particularly good score!

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.

        This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.

            But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.

            But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.

              • Soyweiser@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                The dehumanization that happens just because people think LLMs are impressive (they are, just not that impressive) is insane.

            • flere-imsaho@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              i guess it comes down to a philosophical question

              no, it doesn’t, and it’s not a philosophical question (and neither is this a question of philosophy).

              the software simply has no cognitive capabilities.

        • exanime@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Because a machine that “forgets” stuff it reads seems rather useless… considering it was a multiple choice style exam and, as a machine, Chat GPT had the book entirely memorized, it should have scored perfect almost all the time.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Chat GPT had the book entirely memorized

            I feel like this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs are trained.

        • Soyweiser@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Dont anthropomorphise. There is quite the difference between a human and an advanced lookuptable.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I absolutely agree. However, if you think the LLMs are just fancy LUTs, then I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, we are also just fancy LUTs.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              You ever meet an ai researcher with a background in biology? I’ve discussed this stuff with one. She disagrees with Turing about machines thinking including when ai is in the picture. They process information very differently from how biology does

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                This is a vague non answer, although I agree it’s done very differently because our process is biological and ai is not.

                But as I asked elsewhere, what’s the effective difference?

                • self@awful.systems
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  so to summarize, your only contributions to this thread are to go “well uh you just don’t know how LLMs work” while providing absolutely no detail of your own, and reporting our regulars for “Civility” when they rightly called you out for being a fucking idiot who’s way out of their depth

                  how fucking embarrassing for you

      • ebu@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        […W]hen examining only those who passed the exam (i.e. licensed or license-pending attorneys), GPT-4’s performance is estimated to drop to 48th percentile overall, and 15th percentile on essays.

        officially Not The Worst™, so clearly AI is going to take over law and governments any day now

        also. what the hell is going on in that other reply thread. just a parade of people incorrecting each other going “LLM’s don’t work like [bad analogy], they work like [even worse analogy]”. did we hit too many buzzwords?

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Not the worst? 48th percentile is basically “average lawyer”. I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket. And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.

          In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.

          • V0ldek@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices.

            It’s a good thing people are so good at vigilance tasks and don’t tend to fall onto just relying on the automation.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?

              Of course it’s even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.

              This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.

              • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                so your process of getting legal advice is:

                1. ask chatgpt, which will output convincing blob of text, with references and sources that might or might be not real, relevant, or make sense, some of which you won’t be able to judge
                2. then, ask a real lawyer about this, which means that they have to make sense of the situation on their own but also dig through machine generated drivel, which means that they need more time for that, and this means extra cost/wasted effort

                how does that simplify anything

                • froztbyte@awful.systems
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Look it’s a really cheap and fast way of going from potential lawsuit to actual damages! That’s progress, that is!

                  [ed note: since I can’t markup-joke it in a way that survives lemmy: to be read in pratchett voice)

              • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?

                that’s one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i’ve authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while “getting a list of sources” part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what’s relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don’t know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output

          • ebu@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            48th percentile is basically “average lawyer”.

            good thing all of law is just answering multiple-choice tests

            I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket.

            because judges looooove reading AI garbage and will definitely be willing to work with someone who is just repeatedly stuffing legal-sounding keywords into google docs and mashing “generate”

            And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.

            “guys our keyword-stuffing techniques aren’t working, we need a system to stuff EVEN MORE KEYWORDS into the keyword reassembler”

            In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter

            oh i would love to read those court documents

            and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate

            wow, negative time saved! okay so your lawyer has to read and parse several paragraphs of statistical word salad, scrap 80+% of it because it’s legalese-flavored gobbledygook, and then try to write around and reformat the remaining 20% into something that’s syntactically and legally coherent – you know, the thing their profession is literally on the line for. good idea

            what promptfondlers continuously seem to fail to understand is that verification is the hard step. literally anyone on the planet can write a legal letter if they don’t care about its quality or the ramifications of sending it to a judge in their criminal defense trial. part of being a lawyer is being able to tell actual legal arguments from bullshit, and when you hire an attorney, that is the skill you are paying for. not how many paragraphs of bullshit they can spit out per minute

            they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.

            “but the line is going up!! see?! sure we’re constantly losing cases and/or getting them thrown out because we’re spamming documents full of nonsense at the court clerk, but we’re doing it so quickly!!”

              • ebu@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                it’s funny how your first choice of insult is accusing me of not being deep enough into llm garbage. like, uh, yeah, why would i be

                but also how dare you – i’ll have you know i only choose the most finely-tuned, artisinally-crafted models for my lawyering and/or furry erotic roleplaying needs

      • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s like saying a person reading a book before a quiz is doing it open book because they have the memory of reading that book.

          • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I’m not a big AI guy but it’s really not quite like that, models do NOT contain all the data they were trained on.

            Edit: I have no idea what’s going on down below this comment

          • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Except it’s not, because they can’t perfectly recall everything.

            It’s more like reading every book in the world, and someone asking you what comes next after “And I…”.

  • walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I asked AI to summarize the article since it’s paywalled. It didn’t say anything about lying, should I trust it?

  • froztbyte@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    this thread enters the pantheon of things I’ll occasionally return to when I need a laugh, joining the likes of bash.org (rip) and other qdbs