Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

chii

> They're still autocomplete

it's like saying our brain is just some chemical chain reactions. True, but also irrelevant.

View on HN

See: philosophy ~> determinism.

Philosophy yes, but Dennett's design vs intentional stance is a more appropriate tool here.

Design stance is, LLM is a next word predictor.

Intentional stance is, LLM can reason, according to what rules?

The discussion of whether free will exists? It's related but only barely, I'd say.

It's related in the sense that people start from the assumption that it does exist, ergo humans have it, and we have no way to see that LLMs have it, so that's why we're special and they're not, and their form of "just autocomplete" is totally 100% completely different (read: less dangerous!) than our autocomplete, which allegedly has a "free will" step involved.

The autocomplete argument is calling them fundamentally dumb and not self aware. That's separate from free will. A cat can have free will but we don't care much about its desires, and even if the universe is deterministic we still give people rights and call them intelligent.

Self-awareness is functionally irrelevant and they’re empirically less and less dumb by the day.

Whatever, I'm not here to argue about it, but it's what people are implying with the autocorrect thing, not stuff about determinism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com