this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
843 points (96.8% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers
1994 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
843
answer = sum(n) / len(n) (lemmy.eco.br)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

But it is, and it always has been. Absurdly complexly layered statistics, calculated faster than a human could.

Well sure, but as someone else said even heat is statistics. Saying "ML is just statistics" is so reductionist as to be meaningless. Heat is just statistics. Biology is just physics. Forests are just trees.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

It’s like saying a jet engine is essentially just a wheel and axle rotating really fast. I mean, it is, but it’s shaped in such a way that it’s far more useful than just a wheel.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, but the critical question is: is human intelligence statistics?

Seems no, to me: a human lawyer wouldn't, for instance, make up case law that doesn't exist. AI has done that one already. If it had even the most basic understanding of what the law is and does, it would have known not to do that.

This shit is just megahal on a gpu.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Seems no, to me: a human lawyer wouldn't, for instance, make up case law that doesn't exist. AI has done that one already. If it had even the most basic understanding of what the law is and does, it would have known not to do that.

LLMs don't have an understanding of anything, but that doesn't mean all AI in perpetuity is incapable of having an understanding of eg. what the law is. Edit: oh and also, it's not like human lawyers are incapable of mistakenly "inventing" case law just by remembering something wrong.

As to whether human intelligence is statistics, well… our brains are neural networks, and ultimately neural networks – whether made from meat or otherwise – are "just statistics." So in a way I guess our intelligence is "just statistics", but honestly the whole question is sort of missing the point; the problem with AI (which right now really means LLMs) isn't the fact that they're "just statistics", and whether you think human intelligence is or isn't "just statistics" doesn't really tell you anything about why our brains perform better than LLMs

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Seems no, to me: a human lawyer wouldn't, for instance, make up case law that doesn't exist

You've never seen someone misremember something? The reason human lawyers don't usually get too far with made-up case law is because they have reference material and they know to go back to it. Not because their brains don't make stuff up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think you're not aware of the AI making up a case name from whole cloth that I am talkimg about? Because that's not misremembering, it's exactly what you would expect unintelligent statistical prediction to come up with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Have you ever graded free response tests before? I assure you that some people do similar things when pressed to come up with an answer when they don't know. Often, they know they're BSing, but they're still generating random crap that sounds plausible. One of the big differences is that we haven't told AI to tell us "I'm not sure" when it has high uncertainty; though plenty of people don't do that either.