[ExI] LLM's cannot be concious

[Giovanni Santostasi]

*You will see early versions of gpt-4, despite not yet being trained on
images at the time, was still able to draw images of various objects in
various graphical languages. This shows that the LLM can learn more than
just words. It somehow gained an ability to picture things in its head.*
YES !
And this is what the people that dismiss NLMs do not understand. There are
many emergent properties coming out of them that are not easy to predict
from a simple statistical pattern prediction. For example, it is not
obvious that grammar could be inferred from these statistical patterns. In
fact, if you asked language experts many years ago if NLM could derive
grammar from the statistical patterns the consensus was no, they could not.
They were wrong.
But NLMs do understand grammar and many other things. They even developed a
theory of mind. This without any referent at all. So it is logical that
they can understand in other conceptual domains without the use of
referents. These language experts should actually develop better theories
about how language works instead of insisting on human exceptionality.

Giovanni

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 6:18 PM Gordon Swobe via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 6:29 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 7:33 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 4:11 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, 6:39 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:02 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Others had argued on this thread that it was impossible to extract
>>>>>> meaning from something that lacked referents. it seems you and I agree that
>>>>>> it is possible to extract meaning and understanding from a data set alone,
>>>>>> by virtue of the patterns and correlations present within that data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With the caveat that referents are themselves data, so if we include
>>>>> appropriate referents in that data set then yes.  Referents are often
>>>>> referenced by their correlations and matching patterns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand what you are saying here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you agree that referents are data?  If not, why not?
>>>
>>
>>
>> What is a referent? My understanding was that according to you and
>> Adrian, things like dictionaries and Wikipedia text lack referents since
>> they are just bodies of text.
>>
>
> I think it was Adrian who asked you that question. A referent as I use the
> term is something that exists outside of language to which a word refers.
> You have an apple in your hand and you say "this is an apple." The apple in
> your hand is the referent that corresponds to your word "apple."
>
> As for whether referents are data, it is unclear to me how referents could
> be data. I am inclined to say no but I am not sure what Adrain is getting
> at here.
>
>  -gts
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230323/726a74ff/attachment.htm>