Programming

20881 readers

88 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

UlrikHD@programming.dev

Trusting your own judgement on 'AI' is a huge risk (www.baldurbjarnason.com)

submitted 4 days ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OC below by @HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org

What called my attention is that assessments of AI are becoming polarized and somewhat a matter of belief.

Some people firmly believe LLMs are helpful. But programming is a logical task and LLMs can't think - only generate statistically plausible patterns.

The author of the article explains that this creates the same psychological hazards like astrology or tarot cards, psychological traps that have been exploited by psychics for centuries - and even very intelligent people can fall prey to these.

Finally what should cause alarm is that on top that LLMs can't think, but people behave as if they do, there is no objective scientifically sound examination whether AI models can create any working software faster. Given that there are multi-billion dollar investments, and there was more than enough time to carry through controlled experiments, this should raise loud alarm bells.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And how do you know LLMs can't tell that they are involved in a conversation?

Unless you think there is something non-computational in the human brain, then you must accept that computers are - in theory - capable of thinking. With the right software and sufficiently powerful hardware.

Given that truth (which I think you can only avoid through religion or quantum quackery), you can't just say "it's only maths; it can't be thinking" because we know that maths can think.

Do LLMs "think"? The definition of "think" is wooly enough and we understand them little enough that it's quite an assertion to say that they definitely don't.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And how do you know LLMs can’t tell that they are involved in a conversation?

It has no memory, for one. What makes you think that it does know its in a conversation?

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

It has no memory, for one.

It has very short term memory in the form of it's token context. Especially with something like Meta's Coconut.

What makes you think that it does know its in a conversation?

I don't really. Yet. But I also don't think that it is fundamentally impossible for LLMs to think, like you seem to. I also don't think the definition of the word "think" is so narrow that it requires that level of self-awareness. Do you think a mouse is really aware it is a mouse? What about a spider?