Nope. There’s no cognition, no cognitive functions at all in LLMs. They are incapable of understanding actions, reactions, consequences and outcomes.
Literally all it’s doing is giving you a random assortment of words that vaguely correlate to indicators that scored highly for the symbols (ideas/intents) that the prompt you entered contained.
Literally that’s fucking it.
You’re not “talking with an AI” you’re interacting with an LLM that is an amalgam of the collective responses for every inquiry, statement, reply, response, question, etc… That is accessible on the public Internet. It’s a dilution of the “intelligence” that can be derived from what everyone on the Internet has ever said, and what that cacophony of mixed messages, on average, would reply with.
The reason why LLMs have gotten better is because they’ve absorbed more data than previous attempts and some of the outlying extremist messages have been carefully pruned from the library, so the resultant AI trends more towards the median persons predicted reply, versus everyone’s voice being weighed evenly.
It only seems like “AI” because the responses are derived from real, legitimate human replies that were posted somewhere on the Internet at some point in time.
I don’t see what you’ve written and provide the most likely response to the prompt you’ve made.
I cognitively think about what you’ve said, comprehend it, consider the concepts you have portrayed and formulate an idea that becomes my response. I then transcribe that response into language, and write it out in such a way that others can comprehend.
Cognition is the part that’s missing. And what we don’t know about how human cognitive abilities work, far outweighs the amount we do know. Right now our best theories involve a complex interconnection of brain cells that send signals along neurons to other cells and that somehow, in a way we don’t currently understand, results in the complex thought and cognition that we, as humans, have.
To summarize cognitive capabilities into a series of neurons firing is reductive and discounts the very Science that you are basing your answer upon. The Brain is still a thing that we have a lot of work left to do before we can understand it. Your comment is disrespectful of the scientists that are trying to push the understanding of the brain to new levels.
Nope. There’s no cognition, no cognitive functions at all in LLMs. They are incapable of understanding actions, reactions, consequences and outcomes.
Literally all it’s doing is giving you a random assortment of words that vaguely correlate to indicators that scored highly for the symbols (ideas/intents) that the prompt you entered contained.
Literally that’s fucking it.
You’re not “talking with an AI” you’re interacting with an LLM that is an amalgam of the collective responses for every inquiry, statement, reply, response, question, etc… That is accessible on the public Internet. It’s a dilution of the “intelligence” that can be derived from what everyone on the Internet has ever said, and what that cacophony of mixed messages, on average, would reply with.
The reason why LLMs have gotten better is because they’ve absorbed more data than previous attempts and some of the outlying extremist messages have been carefully pruned from the library, so the resultant AI trends more towards the median persons predicted reply, versus everyone’s voice being weighed evenly.
It only seems like “AI” because the responses are derived from real, legitimate human replies that were posted somewhere on the Internet at some point in time.
Not very different from the human brain then 🤷🏼♀️, with the exception of qualia we’re just like that.
And cognitive functions are just nerves triggering other nerves and so on, just like computers’ bits & instructions…
I don’t see what you’ve written and provide the most likely response to the prompt you’ve made.
I cognitively think about what you’ve said, comprehend it, consider the concepts you have portrayed and formulate an idea that becomes my response. I then transcribe that response into language, and write it out in such a way that others can comprehend.
Cognition is the part that’s missing. And what we don’t know about how human cognitive abilities work, far outweighs the amount we do know. Right now our best theories involve a complex interconnection of brain cells that send signals along neurons to other cells and that somehow, in a way we don’t currently understand, results in the complex thought and cognition that we, as humans, have.
To summarize cognitive capabilities into a series of neurons firing is reductive and discounts the very Science that you are basing your answer upon. The Brain is still a thing that we have a lot of work left to do before we can understand it. Your comment is disrespectful of the scientists that are trying to push the understanding of the brain to new levels.
Be quiet.
Not very different from a human brain except in every way we can measure.
Finish highscool lol
I’m a proud GED grad