> I attribute the 'magic' to large scale statistical knowledge assimilation by the models - and reproduction to prompts which closely match the inputs' sentence embedding.
In effect this is how humans respond to prompts no? What's the difference between this and sentience?
People also fail to use logic when assimilating/regurgitating knowledge.
This is merely the observation that a person and a machine can both perform some of the same actions, and is not much of an observation.
I can crank a shaft just like a motor, and a Victrola can recite poetry. You are not confused by either of those things one would hope.
If I tried to write poetry, it would probably be 90% or more "mechanical" in that I would just throw things together from my inventory of vocabulary and some simple assembly rules that could all be codified in a pretty simple flowchart, and a computer could and would do exactly that same thing.
But it's no more mystical than the first example.
It's exactly the same as the first example. It's just overlapping facilities, that a person is capable, and even often does, perform mechanical operations that don't require or exhibit any consciousness. It doesn't mean the inartistic poet person is not conscious or that the poetry generating toaster is.
> In effect this is how humans respond to prompts no? What's the difference between this and sentience?
An interesting line of question & open research is if we statistically learn similarly - why do we know "what we don't know" & LM cannot. If this isn't working, we probably need better knowledge models
In effect this is how humans respond to prompts no? What's the difference between this and sentience?
People also fail to use logic when assimilating/regurgitating knowledge.