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.
  • 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
                                      • tobifant@friendica.tf-translate.netT tobifant@friendica.tf-translate.net
                                        @leeloo The thing is, how can we sure that human intelligence does not essentially work in the same way? My Christian believe tells me we have a soul and LLM's do not, that may be the difference. But from an agnostic perspective, we might reach the point where one cannot tell the difference.
                                        alterelefant@mastodontech.deA This user is from outside of this forum
                                        alterelefant@mastodontech.deA This user is from outside of this forum
                                        alterelefant@mastodontech.de
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #54

                                        @tobifant
                                        A LLM is not able to reason. It can fool you into believing it is intelligent and self aware, where in fact it just parrots the patterns it has stored. These patterns are however very human-like as they are the result of training on texts written by actual humans.

                                        The fun part starts now where the entire internet got flooded by #ai generated content. All of this will be the training set for the next generation of LLM's. What could possibly go wrong?
                                        @leeloo

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • grishka@mastodon.socialG grishka@mastodon.social

                                          @leeloo I myself like calling LLMs "glorified autocomplete". Or "Т9 на максималках" in Russian.

                                          It's surprising just how defensive some people get when I say that even when they agree with my definition. They keep believing that just give this thing more parameters and something magical, something more than sum of its parts will emerge, any moment now, just one more model generation, just one more order of magnitude, I promise.

                                          alterelefant@mastodontech.deA This user is from outside of this forum
                                          alterelefant@mastodontech.deA This user is from outside of this forum
                                          alterelefant@mastodontech.de
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #55

                                          @grishka
                                          The fun part is that the next generation will have the current state of the internet as its training set. An internet that is flooded by #ai generated content.

                                          The biggest issue those ai companies face at the moment is how to only ingest human generated content and filter out as much as possible of all of the ai generated crap that is out there.

                                          Good luck with that.
                                          @leeloo

                                          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