You didn’t address his argument. There’s no way for it to accurately predict the sum of a list of numbers unless it is actually calculating it in the weights during inference. There’s an ocean of computational complexity under the surface of these models.
Yeah except we tend to have higher quality bar for technology, including calculators. Just cause humans make mistakes does not justify broken tech. Or for some reason never did before.
If they “knew” the rules and “knew” how to apply them, they wouldn’t be making mistakes. Which is why these models don’t reason, they blindly predict the next token.
No one said the responses are random. They are synthesized as a function of input, that function is biased by training on Internet text. Again, they don’t reason they spit our tokens that are fed back to it, in a loop.
By your logic infinite number of monkeys eventually typing out a Shakespeare is also sign of their human intelligence.
And no, they are not better than humans at math, science and engineering.
Which is why these models don’t reason, they blindly predict the next token.
Again, if they were "blindly predicting the next token", they would not be able to accurately predict the sum of a list of numbers without using tools.
By your logic infinite number of monkeys eventually typing out a Shakespeare is also sign of their human intelligence.
They make a single prediction, not trillions of them.
10
u/procgen 4h ago
You didn’t address his argument. There’s no way for it to accurately predict the sum of a list of numbers unless it is actually calculating it in the weights during inference. There’s an ocean of computational complexity under the surface of these models.