Shrikant Joshi

Fair, I accept your argument and somewhat agree with it.

This thread has been an eye-opener in many ways but I'm still not entirely convinced. I definitely do need to read up a lot more, that much is abundantly clear.

In any case, thank you for your time and patience. Really appreciate it. 🙏

I guess my question right now boils down to something along the lines of: "Do we know what's the 'salicylic acid' part in AI?" But that's on me to find out, not on you.

Thank you for all your responses - truly appreciate it! 🙏

/end.

Great explanation re: medicine and salicylic acid - thank you!

I'm still stuck on the knowing how generative AI works bit and I'll need some downtime to think and read up about it. Would you mind if I came back to you with some more questions later?

(contd.)

Excellent examples, thanks.

Re: the medicine analogy, if we know it works but we don't know how it works, doesn't that still count as knowledge we have?

In the sense, we know the medicine works. Does it matter knowing how?

I'm asking because it's the same logic/explanation we use for LLMs, right?

Thank you for indulging me with your response. And it makes perfect sense, what you have said: As long as someone has the knowledge, we can safely assume everyone knows it.

One more question, where should I go to read about the internal workings of LLMs? As in, how do they process their "thoughts"?

...as I did learn today.

May I ask why "we as a society don't understand this" doesn't apply here?

Honestly, you don't have to answer it but I would really appreciate it if you did.

Not an armchair diagnosis. I have suspected it and briefly discussed it with my psychiatrist.

I did not want to out myself like this but I am diagnosed with Adult ADHD and I have suspected it is AuDHD for a while now.

Agree. Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, and all that.

But as tech advances, it does become difficult to keep up with because it covers a wider surface area and there's only so much you can spread yourself thin...

I'm trying and failing horribly, as I learned today.

No, everything is 100% me.

I sound like that because I am also a people-pleaser and try to be careful with my words.

Plus, I might be an undiagnosed autistic who has trouble grasping abstract ideas, as someone pointed out in one of the many replies I received today...

(contd.) Again, I am not trying to claw back a point but I'm genuinely curious about how AIs can maintain context in their "thinking".

Damn, I don't even have the right words to ask my questions. I need to read up much more. Ignore this post and the previous one, please.

If you are referring to my declarative statement that we don't know how AI works, I still kinda-sorta stand by that statement.

Yes, plenty have pointed out that the mechanism of how we arrived at it is well-understood but from what little I understand the actual "thinking" mechanism is a black box?

...everyone who had to spend their precious moments calling me a bot, LLM, etc

Sorry I sometimes find it difficult to grasp abstract concepts.

To those who pointed me to resources, thank you.

To those who were patient with explanations, thank you.

To the others, hope your day gets better. (2/2)

Okay, so an hour of non-stop typing later, here's what I have learned:

1. I know nothing about LLMs or AI
2. I might not be human myself.
3. I am an AI booster (whatever that is)
4. I am a bot that can't pass the Turing test.
5. I am an LLM myself.

Only (1) is true, AFAICT.

Apologies to... (1/n)

I don't understand LLMs but I am trying. And this thread is helping me learn.

Well other than the derisive comments and sarcastic responses...

Hi Ed, thank you for your kind words. I promise I wasn't "just asking questions" - I was genuinely trying to sort my own thoughts out.

I don't think I am an "AI booster" but I do have problems grasping abstract concepts some of it may have been a bit abrasive. I've apologised to those I needed to.

Fair, I will learn art history and exercise my art appreciation muscle more often. Thanks for the clarification!

Yes, I am probably an undiagnosed autistic. Sometimes I find it difficult to grasp abstract thought.

Again, I am not claiming humans are stochastic or AIs are sentient. I am trying to understand the whole thing myself.

Questioning my humanity pits me against you and that helps neither of us. I'd much rather have the argument with you about the subject itself rather than about you & me.

Apologies. I was trying to keep up with a lot of conversations and a lot of different things from different sides.

You did indeed post similar responses but I was trying to answer too many things and defending ad hominem attacks. Got them jumbled up, sorry.

Thank you for the references. I will read them to inform myself better on the subject.

And you're right, I should have probably done that instead of... this, but I was taken aback by the brigade that swarmed by after Alex quote-posted & rushed to defend myself. Probably shouldn't have.

Yeah, somebody should have...

Okay, I don't know then. I have seen/experienced very little art and I have very subjective opinions about the art I have seen/experienced. Maybe I don't understand art at all, so I don't know what else to say.

I'll learn art appreciation and maybe come back to this thread later sometime...

Sorry, what does having a soul have to do with orgasming? Do plants also have souls?

This is incredible, thank you so much for this!!!

Loved this part, specifically: "GPT is intelligent (like a calculator), but it's not sentient. GPT (in theory) is not aware of itself, but has been programmed (in practice) to pretend that is. "

My bad, I looked it up and I see it is Magritte. But Duchamp's Fountain evokes similar ideas for me, so I got my wires crossed.

If you have the qualifications to do so, sure. I could pay you myself, perhaps.

I'm not well-versed on my art references but isn't that Duchamp? I love the guy and his way of perceiving the world is one of the reasons why I question everything, including reality itself.

Which is what I am kinda-sorta questioning right now - what is sentience and what are the criteria for it?

I know you are being a bit facetious here but I'll try and answer your challenge to the best of my limited understanding of the subject.

Does the orgasm have to be the same way a human experiences it? Do earthworms orgasm like humans? Do plants orgasm the same way as humans?

Agree with the first part. Not sure what I should think about the second because I don't know enough to form an opinion over it. I don't want to build an opinion I am not convicned about and then make it a hill to die on because I am called upon to defend it...

The current models have plenty of capabilities that mirror human behaviours like reasoning. Are they as good as humans are? No, they are not.

Am I claiming they are human? No, I am not. I am genuinely wondering (not even claiming) what and where does sentience begin.