It’s also possible, likely even, that the model is capable of both memorization and cognition, and in this case the “memorization neurons” are driving the prediction.
Because it's very good at it, sometimes it can fool people into thinking there is more going on than it is.
Keep in mind GPT 4 is multimodal and not just matching text.
Sorry for appearing to be completely off-topic, but do you have children? Observing our children as they're growing up, specifically the way they formulate and articulate their questions, has been a bit of a revelation to me in terms of understanding "reasoning".
I have a sister of a similar age to me who doesn't have children. My 7 year-old asked me recently - and this is a direct quote - "what is she for?"
I was pretty gobsmacked by that.
Reasoning? You decide(!)
The robots might know everything, but do they wonder anything?
Machines will have to wonder if they are to improve themselves, because that is literally the drive to collect more data, and you need good data to make good decisions.
There's really no reason to doubt the legitimacy here after everyone shared similar experiences, you just kinda look foolish for suggesting the results are faked at this point.
I once asked my niece, a bit after she started really communicating, if she remembered what it was like to not be able to talk. She thought for a moment and then said, "Before I was squishy so I couldn't talk, but then I got harder so I can talk now." Can't argue with that logic.
Pattern matching? You decide
They may have equivalences, but they're separate forms of mathematics. I'd say the same applies to different algorithms or models of computation, such as neural nets.
I don’t have the language to explain the difference in a manner I find sufficiently precise. I was hoping others might.
It does more than that. It understands how to do basic math. You can ask it what ((935+91218)/4)*3) is and it will answer it correctly. Swap those numbers for any other random numbers, it will answer it correctly.
It has never seen that during training, but it understands the mathematical concepts.
If you ask ChatGPT how it does this, it says "I break down the problem into its component parts, apply relevant mathematical rules and formulas, and then generate a solution".
It's that "apply mathetmatical rules" part that is more than just, essentially, filling in the next likely token.
When it can't find the pattern it starts "making things" up, that's where all the "magic" disappears.
At least for GPT-3, during my own experimentation, it occasionally makes arithmetic errors, especially with calculations involving numbers in scientific notation (which it is happy to use as intermediate results if you provide a prompt with a complex, multi-step word problem).
It doesn't though. Here's GPT-4 completely failing: https://gcdnb.pbrd.co/images/uxH1EtVhG2rd.png?o=1. It's riddled with errors, every single step.
You are (naively, I would suggest) accepting the LLM's answer for how it 'does' the calculation as what it actually does do. It doesn't do the calculation; it has simply generated a typical response to how people who can do calculations explain how they do calculations.
You have mistaken a ventriloquist's doll's speech for the 'self-reasoning' of the doll itself. An error that is being repeatedly made all throughout this thread.
The problem with the goat question is that the model is falling back on memorized answers. If the model is in fact capable of cognition, you’d have better odds of triggering the ability with problems that are dissimilar to anything in the training set.
Https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382
It looks like OpenAI have specifically added Othello game handling to chat.openai.org, so I guess they’ve done the same fine-tuning to ChatGPT? It would be interesting to know how good an untuned GPT3/4 was at Othello & whether OpenAI has fine-tuned it or not!
(Having just tried a few moves, it looks like ChatGPT is just as bad at Othello as it was at chess, so it’s interesting that it knows the initial board layout but can’t actually play any moves correctly: Every updated board it prints out is completely wrong.)
Why is that interesting? The initial board layout would appear all the time in the training data.
It was able to model the chronological series of game states that it read from an example game. It was able to include the arbitrary "new game state" of a prompt into that model, then extrapolate that "new game state" into "a new series of game states".
All of the logic and intentions involved in playing the example game were saved into that series of game states. By implicitly modeling a correctly played game, you can implicitly generate a valid continuation for any arbitrary game state; at least with a relatively high success rate.
But we have fundamental, mathematical bounds on the LLM. We know that the complexity is at most O(n^2) in token length n, probably closer to O(n). It can not "think" about a problem and recurse into simulating games. It can not simulate. It's an interesting frontier, especially because we have also cool results about the theoretical, universal approximation capabilities of RNNs.
And that's the least exciting possible mystery: any surprise behavior is categorized by us as a failure. If GPT's model has boundaries that don't make sense to us, we consider them noise. They are not useful behavior, and our goal is to minimize them.
It could have a dozen internal reasoning networks but it doesn't use them when you want to.
What do you mean? Is cognition a set of weights on a gradient? Cognition involves conscious reasoning and understanding. How do you know it is computable at all? There are many things which cannot be computed by a program (e.g. whether an arbitrary program will halt or not)...
That's a pretty simplistic view. How do you know we can't determine whether an arbitrary program will halt or not (assuming access to all inputs and enough time to examine it)? What in principle would prevent us from doing so? But computers in principle cannot, since the problem is often non-algorithmic.
For example, consider the following program, which is passed the text of the file it is in as input:
function doesHalt($program, $inputs): bool {...}
$input = $argv[0]; // contents of this file
if (doesHalt($input, [$input])) {
while(true) {
print "Wrong! It doesn't halt!";
}
} else {
print "Wrong! It halts!";
}
It doesn't matter what the algorithmic doesHalt function returns - it will always be incorrect for this program. What makes you certain there is an algorithmic analog for all human reasoning?
The point is we currently have very little understanding of what gives rise to consciousness, so what is the point of all this pontificating and grand standing. Its silly. We've no idea what we are talking about at present.
Clearly, our state of the art models of nueral-like computation do not really simulate consciousness at all, so why is the default assumption that they could if we get better at making them? The burden of evidence is on conputational models to prove they can produce a consciousness model, not the other way around.
The function we are trying to compute is undecidable. Sure we as humans understand that there's a dichotomy here: if the program halts it won't halt; if it doesn't halt it will halt. But the function we are asked to compute must have one output on a given input. So a human, when given this program as input, is also unable to assign an output.
So humans also can't solve the halting problem, we are just able to recognize that the problem is undecidable.
Note: whatever algorithm is implemented in the doesHalt function will contain a bug for at least some inputs, since it's trying to generalize something that is non-algorithmic.
In principle no algorithm can be created to determine if an arbitrary program will halt, since whatever it is could be implemented in a function which the program calls (with itself as the input) and then does the opposite thing.
> What makes you certain there is an algorithmic analog for all human reasoning?
(Maybe) not for ALL human thought but at least all communicatable deductive reasoning can be encoded in formal logic. If I give you an algorithm and ask you to decide if it does halt or does not halt (I give you plenty of time to decide) and then ask you to explain to me your result and convince me that you are correct, you have to put your thoughts into words that I can understand and and the logic of your reasoning has to be sound. And if you can explain to me you could as well encode your though process into an algorithm or a formal logic expression. If you can not, you could not convince me. If you can: now you have your algorithm for deciding the halting problem.
Can you tell me if a program which searches for counterexamples to the Collatz conjecture halts?
Turing's entire analysis started from the point of what humans could do.
Your argument doesn't disprove my assumption *. In which case, what's the point of it?
* - I don't necessarily believe this assumption. But I do dislike bad arguments.
And while the human brain might not be a bio-computer, I'm not sure, its computational prowess are doubtfully stronger than a quantum turing machine, which can't solve the halting problem either.
func main() {
var n = 4;
OUTER: loop {
for (var i = 2; i < n/2; i++) {
if (isPrime(i) && isPrime(n-i)) {
n += 2;
continue OUTER; // Goldbach’s conjecture
}
break;
}
}If cognition magically exists outside of math and science, then sure, all bets are off.
We don't even know if the flow of water in a river can always be represented by a mathematical function - this is one of the Millennium Problems. And we've known the partial differential equations that govern that system since the 1850's.
We are far, far away from even being able to write down anything resembling a mathematical description of cognition, let alone being able to say whether the solutions to that description are in the class of Lebesgue-integrable functions.
There was, past tense, no reason to believe cognition could be represented as a mathematical function. LLMs with RLHF are forcing us to question that assumption. I would agree that we are a long way from a rigorous mathematical definition of human thought, but in the meantime that doesn't reduce the utility of approximate solutions.
The Navier-Stokes equations are a set of partial differential equations - they are the problem statement. Given some initial and boundary conditions, we can find (approximate or exact) solutions, which are functions. But we don't know that these solutions are always Lebesgue integrable, and if they are not, neural nets will not be able to approximate them.
This is just a simple example from well-understood physics that we know neural nets won't always be able to give approximate descriptions of reality.
"Neural networks are universal approximators" is a fairly meaningless sound bite. It just means that given enough parameters and/or the right activation function, a neural network, which is itself a function, can approximate other functions. But "enough" and "right" are doing a lot of work here, and pragmatically the answer to "how approximate?" can be "not very".
A lot of people who argue that cognition is special to biological systems seem to base the argument on our inability to accurately model the detailed behavior of neurons. And yet kids regularly build universal computers out of stuff in Minecraft. It seems strange to imagine the response characteristics of low-level components of a system determine whether it can be conscious.
But GP specifically says neural nets should be able to do it because they are universal approximators (of Lebesgue integratable functions).
I'm saying this is clearly a nonsense argument, because there are much simpler physical processes than cognition where the answers are not Lebesgue integratable functions, so we have no guarantee that neural networks will be able to approximate the answers.
For cognition we don't even know the problem statement, and maybe the answers are not functions over the real numbers at all, but graphs or matrices or Markov chains or what have you. Then having universal approximators of functions over the real numbers is useless.
Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.
-- Erwin Schrödinger
- Carl Sagan
Sagan, while he did a little bit of useful work on planetary science early in his career, quickly descended into the realm of (self-promotional) pseudo-science. This was his fanciful search for 'extra-terrestrial intelligence'. So it's apposite that you bring him up (even if the quote you bring is a big miss against a philosophical statement), because his belief in such an 'ET' intelligence was a fantasy as much as the belief in the possibility of creating an artificial intelligence is.
We don't know if physics is the fundamental substrate of being, and given Agrippa's trillemma we can't know.
Many things are non-algorithmic, and thus cannot be done by a computer, yet we can do them (e.g. love someone, enjoy the beauty of a sunset, experience joy or sadness, etc).
There's an interesting article/podcast here about what computers can't do: https://mindmatters.ai/2020/08/six-limitations-of-artificial....
Moreover, are you sure that e.g. loving people in non-algorithmic? We can already make chatbots which pretty convincingly act as if they love people. Sure, they don't actually love anyone, they just generate text, but then, what would it mean for a system or even a human to "actually" love someone?
Maybe. When computers solve it then we'll know.
I don't see how it could be reasoned otherwise.
What is your definition of _conscious reasoning and understanding_?
It's kind of sad.