• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Information theory, entropy in Markovian processes. Read up on these buzzwords to see why.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think I know enough about these concepts to know that there isn’t any conclusive proof, observed in output or system state, to establish consensus that human speech output is generated differently to how LLMs generate output. If you have links to any papers that claim otherwise, I’ll be happy to read them.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Evidence for what?

            I’ve just diagonally read a google link where the described way humans work with language appears for me to be very similar to GPT in rough strokes. Only human brain does a lot more than language. Hence the comparisons to the mechanical Turk.

            Also Russell’s teapot.

            • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m not saying humans and LLMs generate language the same way.

              I’m not saying humans and LLMs don’t generate language the same way.

              I’m saying I don’t know and I haven’t seen clear data/evidence/papers/science to lean one way or the other.

              A lot of people seem to believe humans and LLMs don’t generate language the same way. I’m challenging that belief in the absence of data/evidence/papers/science.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Like going out and meeting a dino - 50% yes, 50% no. It’s a joke.

                Russell’s teapot again.

                • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You’re actually incorrect in regards to Russell’s teapot in this instance. The correct approach is to admit to yourself and others you don’t know. Not to assume a negative became you can’t prove a positive, if you can’t prove the negative either.

                  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I know I don’t know, but this is a continuous system and the probability of something being in one particular state is infinitely small ; the probability of it being in certain range of that particular state is, ahem, not, but with the amount of moving things in LLMs and in human brains there are most likely quite a few radical differences between laws describing them.

                    Why am I incorrect? You can’t disprove that there isn’t that teapot flying at a certain orbit as well. Or you can, but not for all such statements.

                    What would be the criterion for saying that yes, human brain works with language just in the same way as LLMs do? What would be “same”? Logic exists inside defined constraints in the continuous world.

                    Unless you define what would prove something, you can’t disprove it, but it’s also not a scientific hypothesis. That’s Popper’s criterion.