Technology

59666 readers

2889 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

238

Recent AI failures are cracks in the magic (www.theintrinsicperspective.com)

submitted 9 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

110 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That's a huge oversimplification of the way LLMs work. They're not statistical in the way a Markov chain is. They use neural networks, which are a decent analogy for the human brain. The way the synapses between neurons are wired is obviously different, and the way the neurons are triggered and the types of signals they can send to other neurons is obviously different. But overall, similar capabilities can in theory be achieved with either method. If you're going to call neural networks statistics based, you might as well call the human brain statistics based as well.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That’s a huge oversimplification of the way LLMs work.

I'm sticking to what matters for the sake of the argument. Anyone who wants to inform themself further has a plethora of online resources to do so.

They’re not statistical in the way a Markov chain is.

Implied: "you're suggesting that they work like Markov chains, they don't."

In no moment I mentioned or even implied Markov chains. My usage of the verb "to chain" is clearly vaguer within that context; please do not assume words onto my mouth.

They use neural networks, which are a decent analogy for the human brain. The way the synapses between neurons are wired is obviously different, and the way the neurons are triggered and the types of signals they can send to other neurons is obviously different. But overall, similar capabilities can in theory be achieved with either method.

I don't disagree with the conclusion (i.e. I believe that neural networks can achieve human-like capabilities), but the argument itself is such a fallacious babble (false equivalence) that I'm not bothering further with your comment.

And it's also an "ackshyually" given this context dammit. I'm not talking about the bloody neural network, but how it is used.

[–] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No need to get offended. Maybe I misunderstood the intent behind your original message. I think you made a lot of good points.

I brought up the Markov chain because a common misconception I've seen on the Internet and in real life is that LLMs work pretty much the same as Markov chains under the hood. And I saw no mention of neural networks in your original comment.