My parrot clearly understands basic events and phrases. He knows what "snacks" involve when I ask if we should have some, he knows the difference between "good morning" and "bedtime", and he can correctly use "Oh!" when he stumbles and follow up with a "Good boy!" when he gets back up again.
But he cannot fathom the complexity of "going to work to earn money".
Just like we humans cannot fathom the complexity of something we have yet to fully understand. People who experience a DMT trip will experience the journey but be unable to comprehend and explain what happened in hindsight. I'm sure there's a TON more we cannot comprehend that we don't know about.
>why parrots are not going to parrot work to earn parrot money
and to a certain degree about communication and society.
We know and understand how different species organise their life in many various ways.
Best I can do is some high-school mumbo-jumbo about farming and specialization furthering wealth acquisition.
But to truly comprehend the situation I'd have to study economics and current events and sociology and even then I think it's a lot of theories and sometimes when I hear economists talk I wonder that it may not be coming out of their mouth.
IMO we really are just a bunch of models that interoperate.
The way LLMs lack broader context, have a narrow focus, and hallucinate, strike me as similar to people that have had traumatic brain injuries to their right hemisphere. Those people may hallucinate that the left side (the right hemisphere senses the left side of the body) of their body is made of wood and hinges and can talk to you about it like it is the most natural thing in the world. When the information gets to the left hemisphere to construct language about what they sense, there is a failure of the right to deliver the broader context to the left hemisphere that that's not possible, but they won't bat an eye discussing what they believe.
So, we have a left hemisphere where we do most of our focused thinking, logic, constructing language, etc. and LLMs seem pretty similar to a lot of that. But, we also think without language, thinking does not require language. A lot of thinking is also happening in the right hemisphere and it isn't using formal logic, isn't using narrow focus but rather intuition based on broad contextual and experiential embodied knowledge. And this type of thinking isn't binary, it accommodates paradoxes without issue. LLMs don't currently have anything analogous to this type of knowledge and this type of processing AFAICT.
In addition, that intuition might be tied to a feedback system with the body, for example, our second brain, the gut, provides a lot of control over how our body performs and provides a lot of feedback to the brain about how we feel. In fact, all feelings are sensed in the body (gut feelings, cold feet, weak in the knees, lump in your throat, burning ears, tight fists, etc.). Part of our intuition is based on considering an idea, sensing how we feel about that idea, sensed in various parts of the body, and then bouncing that back and forth across hemispheres to decide.
I wonder, what sort of pattern matching can we build that models embodied feelings. How would you model boredom, hunger, lust, fear, humor, etc? I think that's possible, but I don't know that we'll be able to do that with a normal computer, I think the way the brain works is more analogous to a symphony of simultaneous signals being processed with an emergent thought and less like a single-threaded process assembling words.
Maybe we can enumerate and model the human drivers of behavior and get something closer to what we're calling comprehension here, but token predictors for language are not getting us any closer to human comprehension. The human brain might just be an anticipation machine, but LLMs only deal with one dimension of human behavior, language, and there's little reason to think you can skip modeling everything that leads to human comprehension and still get anything more than just word babel with compounding error rates in predicting words that represent human comprehension.
It requires some kind of signal. Words of a language are a signal. We choose words for an llm to interact with us, but other transformers work on pixel values or audio sample values. There exist transformers used on brain probe generated values.
I would see human language processing as a kind of coprocessor sitting in another side of the brain. But the same can be said about transformers in general. The words side is only part of them, to be able to communicate.
We have wiki pages describing fallacies of our brain we need to be aware of.
Is this comprehension in the room with us now?
Seriously, go ahead, provide a proof that you have it, and a proof that "trained algorithms" don't.
This occurs constantly and continually inside the mind of every conscious human, it is what we call "being conscious".
This constant and never ending evaluation of all observations cannot be turned off, when turned off a person is "unconscious".
This is our human security and survival system, impressed into us for survival in a predator and prey environment, and is the seat of our consciousness: comprehension is a running simulation of all our observations for the purpose of our safety and self preservation.
Today, our environment is largely social and abstracted from "fight or flight", but our predator and prey dynamic is as present and strong and required as it ever was.
Look, I totally agree with you here. It does require comprehension (by any definition, not necessarily yours), and most humans display it in many areas [1]. The problem is that any good LLM could and would have provided the exact same assessment [2]. Which is enough for me to declare them capable of comprehension.
[1] But not in all areas. For example buzzword-filled company and marketing communication, pseudoscience, and some particularly obscure continental philosophy, prove that humans can behave as if they had comprehension even when they have none.
[2] I gave it to Claude Fable 5.1 without any other context than "what do you think of this definition" and it answered: "interesting, with some real insight, but I think it overreaches".