I have many conversations with people about Large Language Models like ChatGPT and Copilot. The idea that “it makes convincing sentences, but it doesn’t know what it’s talking about” is a difficult concept to convey or wrap your head around. Because the sentences are so convincing.

Any good examples on how to explain this in simple terms?

Edit:some good answers already! I find especially that the emotional barrier is difficult to break. If an AI says something malicious, our brain immediatly jumps to “it has intent”. How can we explain this away?

  • 1rre
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Thing is a conscience (and any emotions, and feelings in general) is just chemicals affecting electrical signals in the brain… If a ML model such as an LLM uses parameters to affect electrical signals through its nodes then is it on us to say it can’t have a conscience, or feel happy or sad, or even pain?

    Sure the inputs and outputs are different, but when you have “real” inputs it’s possible that the training data for “weather = rain” is more downbeat than “weather = sun” so is it reasonable to say that the model gets depressed when it’s raining?

    The weightings will change leading to a a change in the electrical signals, which emulates pretty closely what happens in our heads

    • Hucklebee@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Doesn’t that depend on your view of consciousness and if you hold the view of naturalism?

      I thought science is starting to find more and more that a 100% naturalistic worldview is hard to keep up. (E: I’m no expert on this topic and the information and podcast I listen to are probably very biased towards my own view on this. The point I’m making is that to say “we are just neurons” is more a disputed topic for debate than actual fact when you dive a little bit into neuroscience)

      I guess my initial question is almost more philosophical in nature and less deterministic.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not positive I’m understanding your term naturalistic but no neuroscientist would say “we are just neurons”. Similarly no neuroscientist would deny that neurons are a fundamental part of consciousness and thought.

        You have plenty of complex chemical processes interacting with your brain constantly - the neurons there aren’t all of who you are.

        But without the neurons there: you aren’t anyone anymore. You cease to live. Destroying some of those neurons will change you fundamentally.

        There’s no disputing this.

        • Hucklebee@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I agree with you, and you worded what I was clumsily trying to say. Thank you:)

          With naturalism I mean the philosphical idea that only natural laws and forces are present in this world. Or as an extension, the idea that here is only matter.