Wondering if Modern LLMs like GPT4, Claude Sonnet and llama 3 are closer to human intelligence or next word predictor. Also not sure if this graph is right way to visualize it.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s literally how llma work, they quite literally are just next word predictors. There is zero intelligence to them.

    It’s literally a while token is not “stop”, predict next token.

    It’s just that they are pretty good at predicting the next token so it feels like intelligence.

    So on your graph, it would be a vertical line at 0.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        yeah yeah I’ve heard this argument before. “What is learning if not like training.” I’m not going to define it here. It doesn’t “think”. It doesn’t have nuance. It is simply a prediction engine. A very good prediction engine, but that’s all it is. I spent several months of unemployment teaching myself the ins and outs, developing against llms, training a few of my own. I’m very aware that it is not intelligence. It is a very clever trick it pulls off, and easy to fool people that it is intelligence - but it’s not.

        • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          But how do you know that the human brain is not just a super sophisticated next-thing predictor that by being super sophisticated manages to incorporate nuance and all that stuff to actually be intelligent? Not saying it is but still.

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Because we have reason, understanding. Take something as simple as the XY problem. Humans understand that there are nuances to prompts and questions. I like the XY because a human knows to step back and ask “what are you really trying to do?”. AI doesn’t have that capability, it doesn’t have reasoning to say “maybe your approach is wrong”.

            So, I’m not the one to define what it is or on what scale. But I can say that it’s not human intelligence.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This is true if you describe a pure llm, like gpt3

      However systems like claude, gpt4o and 1o are far from just a single llm, they are a blend of tailored llms, machine learning some old fashioned code to weave it all together.

      Op does ask “modern llm” so technically you are right but i believed they did mean the more advanced “products”

      Though i would not be able to actually answer ops questions, ai is hard to directly compare with a human.

      In most ways its embarrassingly stupid, in other it has already surpassed us.

      • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        None of which are intelligence, and all of which are catered towards predicting the next token.

        All the models have a total reliance on data and structure for inference and prediction. They appear intelligent but they are not.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          How is good old fashioned code comparing outputs to a database of factual knowledge “predicting the next token” to you. Or reinforcement relearning and token rewards baked into models.

          I can tell you have not actually tried to work with professional ai or looked at the research papers.

          Yes none of it is “intelligent” but i would counter that with neither are human beings, we dont even know how to define intelligence.

      • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        No, unfortunately you are wrong.

        Gpt4 is a better version of gpt3.

        The brand new one that is allegedly “unhackable” just has a role hierarchy providing rules and that hasn’t been fulled tested in the wild yet.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          First, did you read even the research papers?

          Secondly, none are out that are actually immune to jailbreaking lol, Where did that claim come from?

          Gpt4 is just an llm. Indeed the better version of gpt3

          Gpt4o and 1o (claude-sonnet possibly also) rely on the generative capacities of the gpt4 model but there is allot more going under the hood that is not simply “generate the next token”

          We all agree that a pure text predictor are not at all intelligent.

          The discussion at hand is wether the current frontier of ai has moved the needle up. And i still would call it pretty dumb, but moving that needle, it did. Somewhere around (x2y0.5) if i have to use the meme. Stating its (0,0) just means people aren’t interested enough to pay attention, that these aren’t just llm anymore. That’s their right but i prefer people stopped joining the discussion so uninformed.