In other news, water is wet.
I don't think anybody who uses LLMs professionally day-to-day thinks that it can reason like human beings... If some people thought this, they fundamentally do not understand how LLMs work under the hood.
I don't think anybody who uses LLMs professionally day-to-day thinks that it can reason like human beings... If some people thought this, they fundamentally do not understand how LLMs work under the hood.
I'm ok with thinking it's possible that some subset of consciousness might exist in LLMs while also being well aware of their limitations. Cognitive science has plenty of examples of mental impairments that show that there are individuals that lack some of the things that LLMs also lack that. We would hardly deny those individuals are conscious. The distinction for what is thought is lower but no less complex.
Before we had machines pushing at these boundaries, there were very learned people debating these issues, but it seems like now some gut instincts from people who have chatted to a bot for a bit are carrying the day.
They are completely independent. For all we know human reasoning may absolutely share similar underlying principles as LLMs. Or not. We just don't know.
The internet and smartphones were still extremely useful. There's no need to refute VC exaggeration. It's like writing articles to prove that perfume won't catch you Bradd Pitt. Nobody literally believes the adverts but that doesn't mean perfume is a lie.
I'm not saying that VCs only push good ideas - e.g. flying cars & web3 aren't going to work. Just that their claims are obviously exaggerated and can be ignored, even for useful ideas.