Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. As a software developer who took an elective in neural networks - when people call LLMs stochastic parrots, that's not criticism of their results.

As a software developer who took an elective in neural networks - when people call LLMs stochastic parrots, that's not criticism of their results.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
82 Posts 32 Posters 1 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • calcifer@masto.hackers.townC calcifer@masto.hackers.town

    @KayOhtie @leeloo honestly it’s safe to feed a model pretty much anything

    But where you direct the outputs and how they are acted upon can get incredibly dangerous amazingly quickly. There’s a common misbelief that if you’re careful about inputs, LLMs are safe; and that’s almost exactly backwards

    kayohtie@blimps.xyzK This user is from outside of this forum
    kayohtie@blimps.xyzK This user is from outside of this forum
    kayohtie@blimps.xyz
    wrote last edited by
    #34

    @calcifer @leeloo I meant 'safe' not as in "data leakage", but "getting anything remotely accurate out of it"

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • mudri@mathstodon.xyzM mudri@mathstodon.xyz

      @lmorchard The ability to induce such a rule goes well beyond the OP's characterisation of what LLMs do.

      calcifer@masto.hackers.townC This user is from outside of this forum
      calcifer@masto.hackers.townC This user is from outside of this forum
      calcifer@masto.hackers.town
      wrote last edited by
      #35

      @mudri @lmorchard it’s not inductive at all though. It’s just parroting the patterns it sees in its training data. If it wasn’t common to see exchanges like that, the response would be utter nonsense.

      People misunderstand what “training” is. It’s modeling the input. Humans develop the rules for how to model that input. Emergent properties of that process can easily *seem* like thinking or reason, but it’s an illusion.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • growlph@greywolf.socialG growlph@greywolf.social

        @leeloo I feel like there are certain situations where a stochastic parrot is useful, many more situations where it is not, and alarmingly few people recognizing the difference.

        calcifer@masto.hackers.townC This user is from outside of this forum
        calcifer@masto.hackers.townC This user is from outside of this forum
        calcifer@masto.hackers.town
        wrote last edited by
        #36

        @growlph @leeloo this is the whole frustration I have with the polarization on the topic. There is genuinely utility. There’s also a very good argument that the utility doesn’t exceed the costs (socially, environmentally, etc).

        But the hype is unreal and legitimately dangerous.

        tal@mastodon.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • wolf480pl@mstdn.ioW wolf480pl@mstdn.io

          @leeloo on the flipside, I feel like some people use the term "stochastic parrot" or "it just completes the next token" to imply that "therefore it cannot be intelligent" - is that correct reasoning?

          eestileib@tech.lgbtE This user is from outside of this forum
          eestileib@tech.lgbtE This user is from outside of this forum
          eestileib@tech.lgbt
          wrote last edited by
          #37

          @wolf480pl @leeloo

          Yes and I take that position.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org

            @leeloo @wolf480pl @lmorchard I mean, I believe the human mind is the product of the physical human, largely of the brain (I don't believe in a non-physical soul), and it might indeed be basically an incredibly complex big bunch of matrix multiplications. And yeah I believe that's pretty magical.

            lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
            lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
            lmorchard@masto.hackers.town
            wrote last edited by
            #38

            @dragonfrog @leeloo @wolf480pl

            "Imagine you have two machines. One you can open up and examine all of its workings, and if you give it every picture of a cat on the whole internet, it can reliably distinguish cats from non-cats. The other is a black box and it can also reliably distinguish cats from non-cats if you give it half a dozen pictures of cats, some apple sauce, and a hug. ... I am extremely confident in saying it doesn’t work the same way as the first one."

            Link Preview Image
            A.I. Isn't People

            How many Reddit posts does it take to learn to read?

            favicon

            Today in Tabs (www.todayintabs.com)

            dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • wolf480pl@mstdn.ioW wolf480pl@mstdn.io

              @lmorchard @leeloo
              I don't buy a general "no matrix multiplication will ever be intelligent".

              jrdepriest@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
              jrdepriest@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
              jrdepriest@infosec.exchange
              wrote last edited by
              #39

              @wolf480pl @lmorchard @leeloo you are allowed to believe that even if it is factually incorrect.

              Link Preview Image
              A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

              In many discussions where questions of "alignment" or "AI safety" crop up, I am baffled by seriously intelligent people imbuing almost magic...

              favicon

              (addxorrol.blogspot.com)

              Link Preview Image
              Is language the same as intelligence? The AI industry desperately needs it to be

              Neuroscience indicates language is distinct from thought, raising questions about whether AI large language models are a viable path to artificial general intelligence.

              favicon

              The Verge (www.theverge.com)

              Just a moment...

              favicon

              (medium.com)

              Link Preview Image
              The LLMentalist Effect: how chat-based Large Language Models rep…

              How to make better software with systems-thinking

              favicon

              Out of the Software Crisis (softwarecrisis.dev)

              lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • wolf480pl@mstdn.ioW wolf480pl@mstdn.io

                @leeloo
                My point is that emergent properties can manifest even in systems ruled by very simple rules, and can be difficult to predict by just looking at the rules.

                And human intelligence, whatever it is, is likely an emergent property of human brain.

                Therefore, we cannot rule out that a similar emergent property will appear in artidicial systems that are not made of neurons without referring to how the neurons are arranged, and how the artificial systems are arranged.

                0x00string@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                0x00string@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                0x00string@infosec.exchange
                wrote last edited by
                #40

                @wolf480pl @leeloo dude its a spreadsheet

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • wolf480pl@mstdn.ioW wolf480pl@mstdn.io

                  @robotistry
                  @leeloo
                  so it's a parrot not because it's a matrix of probabilities, but because its hasn't experienced the real-world consequences of its words/actions and updated the probabilities based on those consequences?

                  0x00string@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                  0x00string@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                  0x00string@infosec.exchange
                  wrote last edited by
                  #41

                  @wolf480pl @robotistry @leeloo spreadsheets cant have experiences, it doesnt update its probabilities, human beings spend insane amounts of money to generate the spreadsheets, nothing new comes out of them, have you uhh ever like looked into how this software works?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • wolf480pl@mstdn.ioW wolf480pl@mstdn.io

                    @lmorchard @leeloo
                    I don't buy a general "no matrix multiplication will ever be intelligent".

                    0x00string@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                    0x00string@infosec.exchange0 This user is from outside of this forum
                    0x00string@infosec.exchange
                    wrote last edited by
                    #42

                    @wolf480pl @lmorchard @leeloo praise be all glory to the llm

                    lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • wolf480pl@mstdn.ioW wolf480pl@mstdn.io

                      @lmorchard @leeloo
                      I don't buy a general "no matrix multiplication will ever be intelligent".

                      splendorr@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                      splendorr@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                      splendorr@mastodon.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #43

                      @wolf480pl @lmorchard @leeloo okay but that’s true. matrix multiplication will never be intelligent. the truth is neat!

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • clusterfcku@mastodon.socialC clusterfcku@mastodon.social

                        @leeloo the flip side question about intelligence and LLMs is whether much of what we consider intelligence in humans is in fact just stochastic parrotting by humans.

                        splendorr@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                        splendorr@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                        splendorr@mastodon.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #44

                        @clusterfcku @leeloo it’s not, and it sucks to suggest that

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • 0x00string@infosec.exchange0 0x00string@infosec.exchange

                          @wolf480pl @lmorchard @leeloo praise be all glory to the llm

                          lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
                          lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
                          lmorchard@masto.hackers.town
                          wrote last edited by
                          #45

                          @0x00string @wolf480pl @leeloo ...no?

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • jrdepriest@infosec.exchangeJ jrdepriest@infosec.exchange

                            @wolf480pl @lmorchard @leeloo you are allowed to believe that even if it is factually incorrect.

                            Link Preview Image
                            A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

                            In many discussions where questions of "alignment" or "AI safety" crop up, I am baffled by seriously intelligent people imbuing almost magic...

                            favicon

                            (addxorrol.blogspot.com)

                            Link Preview Image
                            Is language the same as intelligence? The AI industry desperately needs it to be

                            Neuroscience indicates language is distinct from thought, raising questions about whether AI large language models are a viable path to artificial general intelligence.

                            favicon

                            The Verge (www.theverge.com)

                            Just a moment...

                            favicon

                            (medium.com)

                            Link Preview Image
                            The LLMentalist Effect: how chat-based Large Language Models rep…

                            How to make better software with systems-thinking

                            favicon

                            Out of the Software Crisis (softwarecrisis.dev)

                            lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
                            lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
                            lmorchard@masto.hackers.town
                            wrote last edited by
                            #46

                            @jrdepriest @wolf480pl @leeloo I'm confused... those links basically say what I said. (i.e. the "intelligence" is second-hand) That's... incorrect?

                            jrdepriest@infosec.exchangeJ 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL lmorchard@masto.hackers.town

                              @jrdepriest @wolf480pl @leeloo I'm confused... those links basically say what I said. (i.e. the "intelligence" is second-hand) That's... incorrect?

                              jrdepriest@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                              jrdepriest@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                              jrdepriest@infosec.exchange
                              wrote last edited by
                              #47

                              @lmorchard @wolf480pl @leeloo

                              LLM based genAI can never be "intelligent". They can spit out language that looks like intelligence but there is no thinking, no inner life, no thoughts, just math. And this is not how the human brain works.

                              Link Preview Image
                              The Parrot in the Machine – James Gleick

                              favicon

                              (around.com)

                              Link Preview Image
                              Toolmen

                              Even the best weapon is an unhappy tool.

                              favicon

                              A Working Library (aworkinglibrary.com)

                              Also, we know the brain is not a computer.

                              Vercel Security Checkpoint

                              favicon

                              (aeon.co)

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • lmorchard@masto.hackers.townL lmorchard@masto.hackers.town

                                @dragonfrog @leeloo @wolf480pl

                                "Imagine you have two machines. One you can open up and examine all of its workings, and if you give it every picture of a cat on the whole internet, it can reliably distinguish cats from non-cats. The other is a black box and it can also reliably distinguish cats from non-cats if you give it half a dozen pictures of cats, some apple sauce, and a hug. ... I am extremely confident in saying it doesn’t work the same way as the first one."

                                Link Preview Image
                                A.I. Isn't People

                                How many Reddit posts does it take to learn to read?

                                favicon

                                Today in Tabs (www.todayintabs.com)

                                dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD This user is from outside of this forum
                                dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD This user is from outside of this forum
                                dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org
                                wrote last edited by
                                #48

                                @lmorchard @leeloo @wolf480pl good grief now I have to sound like Sam friggin Altman, and there is clearly something very wrong with that man.

                                But your description ignores that humans need a solid 6 months of "training data" to get object permanence, never mind the concept of categories or species of animals, never mind understanding the category differences between cats and foxes well enough to reliably tell one from the other.

                                dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • leeloo@chaosfem.twL leeloo@chaosfem.tw

                                  As a software developer who took an elective in neural networks - when people call LLMs stochastic parrots, that's not criticism of their results.

                                  It's literally a description of how they work.

                                  The so-called training data is used to build a huge database of words and the probability of them fitting together.

                                  Stochastic because the whole thing is statistics.
                                  Parrot because the answer is just repeating the most probable word combinations from its training dataset.

                                  Calling an LLM a stochastic parrot is lile calling a car a motorised vehicle with wheels. It doesn't say anything about cars being good or bad. It does, however, take away the magic. So if you feel a need to defend AI when you hear the term stochastic parrot, consider that you may have elevated them to a god-like status, and that's why you go on the defense when the magic is dispelled.

                                  usuario@instancia.orgU This user is from outside of this forum
                                  usuario@instancia.orgU This user is from outside of this forum
                                  usuario@instancia.org
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #49

                                  @leeloo @knuxbbs I think a better term to transmit the idea for regular people is “statistic parrot”, nobody knows what stochastic is

                                  alterelefant@mastodontech.deA 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org

                                    @lmorchard @leeloo @wolf480pl good grief now I have to sound like Sam friggin Altman, and there is clearly something very wrong with that man.

                                    But your description ignores that humans need a solid 6 months of "training data" to get object permanence, never mind the concept of categories or species of animals, never mind understanding the category differences between cats and foxes well enough to reliably tell one from the other.

                                    dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD This user is from outside of this forum
                                    dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD This user is from outside of this forum
                                    dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #50

                                    @lmorchard @leeloo @wolf480pl I guess part of it is maybe that I don't think intelligence is some exclusively human thing. LLMs clearly aren't human-like intelligent. I'm personally confident they're not as intelligent as any primate.

                                    But are they as intelligent as a shrimp? I think they've got to be more intelligent than a mosquito.

                                    I wouldn't turn to a shrimp for advice but they're not *without* intelligence.

                                    pseudonym@mastodon.onlineP wolf480pl@mstdn.ioW 2 Replies Last reply
                                    0
                                    • dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org

                                      @lmorchard @leeloo @wolf480pl I guess part of it is maybe that I don't think intelligence is some exclusively human thing. LLMs clearly aren't human-like intelligent. I'm personally confident they're not as intelligent as any primate.

                                      But are they as intelligent as a shrimp? I think they've got to be more intelligent than a mosquito.

                                      I wouldn't turn to a shrimp for advice but they're not *without* intelligence.

                                      pseudonym@mastodon.onlineP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      pseudonym@mastodon.onlineP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      pseudonym@mastodon.online
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #51

                                      @dragonfrog @lmorchard @leeloo @wolf480pl

                                      Are the images reflected in a distorted mirror the product of intelligence (of the mirror)?

                                      They are coherent, a literal transform of the input images, reflected and produce a recognizable, if distorted and changed version.

                                      A traditional function output. Let's add some noise to make it non-deterministic, a wind blowing through that minutely distorts the surface.

                                      Intelligible output following from the input, but the mirror itself isn't intelligent.

                                      pseudonym@mastodon.onlineP 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • pseudonym@mastodon.onlineP pseudonym@mastodon.online

                                        @dragonfrog @lmorchard @leeloo @wolf480pl

                                        Are the images reflected in a distorted mirror the product of intelligence (of the mirror)?

                                        They are coherent, a literal transform of the input images, reflected and produce a recognizable, if distorted and changed version.

                                        A traditional function output. Let's add some noise to make it non-deterministic, a wind blowing through that minutely distorts the surface.

                                        Intelligible output following from the input, but the mirror itself isn't intelligent.

                                        pseudonym@mastodon.onlineP This user is from outside of this forum
                                        pseudonym@mastodon.onlineP This user is from outside of this forum
                                        pseudonym@mastodon.online
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #52

                                        @dragonfrog @lmorchard @leeloo @wolf480pl

                                        The intelligence apparently making the meaning is pre-encoded in the input. Likewise, the vector math is extracting and exposing structure, encoded in language, put there originally by the intelligent humans.

                                        There is no world model or understanding. That's why counting the "r" in strawberry or simply counting to 200 is so challenging.

                                        The behavior can reasonably be called intelligent, but it's due to borrowed, reformulated, extracted intelligence

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • leeloo@chaosfem.twL leeloo@chaosfem.tw

                                          As a software developer who took an elective in neural networks - when people call LLMs stochastic parrots, that's not criticism of their results.

                                          It's literally a description of how they work.

                                          The so-called training data is used to build a huge database of words and the probability of them fitting together.

                                          Stochastic because the whole thing is statistics.
                                          Parrot because the answer is just repeating the most probable word combinations from its training dataset.

                                          Calling an LLM a stochastic parrot is lile calling a car a motorised vehicle with wheels. It doesn't say anything about cars being good or bad. It does, however, take away the magic. So if you feel a need to defend AI when you hear the term stochastic parrot, consider that you may have elevated them to a god-like status, and that's why you go on the defense when the magic is dispelled.

                                          mmin@mastodontti.fiM This user is from outside of this forum
                                          mmin@mastodontti.fiM This user is from outside of this forum
                                          mmin@mastodontti.fi
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #53

                                          @leeloo As a side note, I sometimes worry about how much parroting happens in academia among humans even before/without LLMs, where people repeat things without understanding what they’re talking about. I guess at least for students, it sometimes is about learning to talk the talk, and then gradually developing more understanding and genuine thinking around topics. At least we humans are capable of developing that understanding if we bother to try.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups