If you use AI or shrug about AI or talk about AI or love AI or hate AI—please watch this video showing that there's no mind behind it.
0 Boosts
0 Likes
@thomasfuchs I hate the fact that she's using it at all, but if this vid helps even one slopophant think about what they're actually using, then I suppose it's worth the cost.
One of the first things I say in every conversation about “AI” is that what it gives isn’t an answer, it’s a response and you need to understand it every time.
They nod their head and immediately forget it.
Many humans will pick a number with two odd digits when asked for a "random" number from 1 to 100. 17, 37, and 73 are more common than 42. Only HHGTG fans are likely to go for that "random" number
@thomasfuchs Or just don't use it. Go for a beer with a friend, and play the guess who I'm thinking about game instead.
Funner, more drinks, silliness, love of one's fellow creature.
@thomasfuchs just tried it (albeit in french) and it just looked fine; used the default model.
I'm not saying there's a mind or that it really picked a choice at first and made me guess, but at least nothing was inconsistent in the chat.
Tried once with free ChatGPT, worked finel. (Only used 7 questions to get the answer but all responses were correct.)
Of course, length may matter, but also how it updates its token analysis and weights as we go along.
I've tested it in longer conversations about things that interest me, where it veers back and forth between nonsense and useful remarks. With nudges. Occasionally I find a simple "That's wrong" can be surprisingly helpful in putting it back on track.
@thomasfuchs
my understanding is that they now have a cache of the previous context, when you send a new message. They keep it cached for some time (counting in hours, not days, I believe), then yeah they feed the full chat.
My understanding is that at one point if the context window started to fill in, the model started to behave in a very dumb way (at least with Claude), but it's not as much a problem now. (also the context window is much larger).
That is indeed the intended point.
One that has been discussed repeatedly and widely since the "stochastic parrot" paper but has not penetrated to the audience that the post aims at.
But we are noticing that the illustration used does not appear to correspond to the actual behavior of popular models.
It works a good deal like a search engine in a linguistic space. If it finds something useful, you can use it, if not, not.
@julienw @thomasfuchs yeah had me thinking that with hidden thinking tokens one could make a working version of guess who…I also couldn’t reproduce what she did. Maybe with a smaller model.
@thomasfuchs
Yes, but that is what is the most easy to improve.
It's really easy to give an LLM memory and a few tools.
The core model works just as the lady says, but none of the commercial products are merely that, like you mentioned.
@flq @julienw
@Noisecolor @thomasfuchs @flq @julienw
No it isn't! The improvement will be just a bandaid as long as it's a LLM.
Like math questions or common riddles it will be a "detect the question type" and use the special approach implemented for this type
The AI hypists will claim "see the new model learned it" but there is no learning, just another special case
@realn2s
It's not a band aid at all.
It's using a model and giving it tools. That makes perfect sense.
We can even give it a tool to find further tools by itself. We can give it tools to build a tool for itself.
That's all already happening.
What we call that activity doesn't really matter. It matters that with them they can very easily solve problems like guess who game.
@Noisecolor @thomasfuchs @flq @julienw
Surprisingly I agree. It's a tool solving a solved problem, slower, less reliable, and far more expensive.
@thomasfuchs or just don't use that crap at all..
@oliverboehme I mean yes, if you don't want to. But in any case it's good to understand how it works, if only to know and explain to people that they have delusions.
@thomasfuchs @oliverboehme I agree that people should understand how these systems work (transparency is best). However I would argue that that knowledge should draw only one conclusion, which is, as @oliverboehme correctly point out, don't use that crap at all.
@thomasfuchs And yet people is ignorant or dumb (or both) enough to treat it as a human. 😂