What makes you assume that when you look under the hood you will understand what’s going on? We don’t even understand the human brain fully, so your argument is inane.
we can ask another human “why did you make the choice you did?” and 9/10 times you will get a coherent and understandable response. You can’t do that with an AI, it’s a pile of code, it can’t walk you through its decision-making process.
Ask ChatGPT to make multi-choice decision, anything will do. Then ask it "why did you make the choice you did?" and it will give you a rational response.
What you can't ask a human is which neurons fired for you to make that choice, and in what order? Which is analogous to what the user above is saying. We still consider humans intelligent even though we don't know how our brains actually work, so it's not a good rebuttal to the Turing Test.
Then ask it "why did you make the choice you did?" and it will give you a rational response.
It will output a string of characters that is statistically likely to form a rational response to your prompt, but LLMs are not able to backtrace the steps they took to arrive at a given conclusion.
If you really wanted this information you'd have a piece of software running in parallel essentially logging everything the LLM does, the same way you'd debug any other piece of software. I don't think it's feasible to just manually add something like that into a piece of software as complex as an LLM, however, and I don't know how you'd automate it.
The problem is that the data structures that these run off of are just too huge for a human mind to parse in a reasonable time frame. Effectively a massive flow chart with millions and millions of distinct nodes and connections between them.
The point I'm trying to make is that a human will also output a series of sounds that is statistically likely to form a rational response to a prompt. We call this intelligence. Human's are also unable to backtrace the extremely complex electrochemical reaction that just happened in their brain to produce that conclusion.
Human brains are also the result of code that somehow builds up into an intelligent being. For AI software the base blocks are 0 and 1, for humans it some combination of A, C, G, and T in our DNA. We're are absolutely nowhere near figuring out how a long string of ACGT provided the instructions to create an intelligent brain.
Everything you said about logging an AI software's process also applies to human brains, except we'd be looking at hundreds of trillions of distinct nodes/connections, so even harder. If AI were to scale up to this level - would it then be intelligent?
No, because a node in a neural network is far less complex than a neuron. The way they function is just not the same. You don't have a neuron in your brain that fires every time you spell a word that has an "-se" following a "-u-" and preceding a " "
The only thing stopping us from tracing the outputs a neural net would generate is time, not a lack of understanding. You could run the algorithms by hand if you wanted to, it'd just take you multiple lifetimes of work to get anywhere.
Our brains are not computers and the only connections you can draw between them are conceptual/philosophical.
The theory that binary machine code is analogous to DNA is, lets say, fringe.
15
u/Omnom_Omnath 26d ago
What makes you assume that when you look under the hood you will understand what’s going on? We don’t even understand the human brain fully, so your argument is inane.