OC below by @HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org

What called my attention is that assessments of AI are becoming polarized and somewhat a matter of belief.

Some people firmly believe LLMs are helpful. But programming is a logical task and LLMs can’t think - only generate statistically plausible patterns.

The author of the article explains that this creates the same psychological hazards like astrology or tarot cards, psychological traps that have been exploited by psychics for centuries - and even very intelligent people can fall prey to these.

Finally what should cause alarm is that on top that LLMs can’t think, but people behave as if they do, there is no objective scientifically sound examination whether AI models can create any working software faster. Given that there are multi-billion dollar investments, and there was more than enough time to carry through controlled experiments, this should raise loud alarm bells.

    • Kuinox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I asked for your definition, I cannot prove something if we do not agree on a definition first.
      You also missread what I said, I did not said AI were thinking.
      The burden of proof is on the one who made an affirmation.
      I’m not the one who made an affirmation which field experts doesn’t know the answer.
      But depending of your definition of thinking, some can be answered.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I don’t think y’all are disagreeing but maybe this sentence is somewhat confusing:

        If you think LLMs doesnt think (I won’t argue that they arent extremely dumb), please define what is thinking,

        Maybe the “doesnt” shouldn’t be there.

        • Kuinox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          No it is here because that’s what they claim.
          Nobody yet know how it work, we don’t know how LLMs process information.
          Anyone who claim it really think, or it isn’t thinking, is believing, this is not something the current ML field know.

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Well, the neural network is given a prefix (series of tokens) and a token, and it spits out how likely is it that the token follows the prefix. Text is generated by calculating this probability for all known tokens, then picking one random, weighted based on the calculated probabilities.

            • Kuinox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              And the brain is made out of neurons that sends electric signals between them and operate muscles.
              That doesnt explain how the brain think.

              • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                It allows us to conclude that an LLM doesn’t “think” about what it is saying. Based on the mechanics, the LLM doesn’t even know it’s a participant in the conversation.