this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023

96 points (92.1% liked)

Technology

68639 readers

5915 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mind-reading AI can translate brainwaves into written text: Using only a sensor-filled helmet combined with artificial intelligence, a team of scientists has announced they can turn a person’s thou...::A system that records the brain's electrical activity through the scalp can turn thoughts into words with help from a large language model – but the results are far from perfect

all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh, come on! This is old tech, guys. I've been using "Thought to Text" helmets for years now. I remember a time when boobies jostling with a fat cock pounding my asshole wearing my sister's pumps. Delete delete. Delete goddamnit. Delete that you stupid piece of shit. Do not post comment. Do not fucking post!

[–] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I feel it’s extremely important to note that I almost instantly died after reading this comment

[–] FoolHen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Thank you, can't remember the last time I got out of bed laughing my ass off

[+] knightly@pawb.social 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Calling llm "big auto-complete" is like calling people "big bacteria" . It's true that they act on the same goal, guess the next word for llm and auto-complete; survive and reproduce for people and bacteria, but they are vastly different in scale and complexity.

Also what would AI be to you if not an llm? Cause I'd say anything that has an SAT score higher than most Americans has some form of intelligence.

[+] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve always wondered with stances like this, why do you assume that our “intelligence” is much different than that of llms? I mean, as much as we like to feel superior, is there anything that would really prove that our brains don’t work in a similar manner behind the curtains? What if we just get input stimuli and our mind is simply the process of figuring out the most likely answers, reactions or whatever, to that?

I haven’t seen anything to that effect, but then again my field of study is vastly different. I’d like to be enlightened certainly!

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This seems like circular reasoning. SAT scores don't measure intelligence because llm can pass it which isn't intelligent.

Why isn't the llm intelligent?

Because it can only pass tests that don't measure intelligence.

You still haven't answered what intelligence is or what an a.i. would be. Without a definition you just fall into the trap of "A.I. is whatever computers cant do" which has been going on for a while:

Computers can do arithmetic but they can't do calculus, that requires true intelligence.

Ok computers can do calculus, but they can't beat someone in chess, that requires true intelligence.

Ok computers can beat us in chess, but they can't form coherent sentences and ideas, that requires true intelligence.

Ok computers can form coherent sentences but ...

It's all just moving the goal post to try and preserve some exclusively human/organic claim to intelligence.

There is one goalpost that has stayed steady, the turing test, which llm seems to have passed, at least for shorter conversation.

[+] knightly@pawb.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

computer scientists, neurologists, and philosophers can't answer that either, or else we'd already have the algorithms we'd need to build human equivalent A.I.

I think your mixing up sentience / consciousness with intelligence. What is consciousness doesn't have a good answer right now and like you said philosophers, computer scientists and neurologist can't come to a clear answer but most think llms aren't conscious.

Intelligence on the other hand does have more concrete definitions that at least computer scientists use that usually revolve around the ability to solve diverse problems and answer questions outside of the entities original training set / database. Yes doing an SAT test with the answer key isn't intelligent because that's in your "database" and is just a matter of copying over the answers. LLMs don't do this though, it doesn't do a lookup of past SAT questions it's seen and answer it, it uses some process of "reasoning" to do it. If you gave an LLM an SAT question that was not in it's original training set it would probably still answer it correctly.

That isn't to say that LLMs are the be all and end all of intelligence, there are different types of intelligence corresponding to the set of problems that intelligence is solving. A plant identification A.I. is intelligent for being able to identify various plants in different scenarios but it completely lacks any emotional, conversational intelligence, etc. The same can be said of a botanist who also may be able to identify plants but may lack some artistic intelligence to depict them. Intelligence comes in many forms.

Different tests can measure different forms of intelligence. The SAT measures a couple like reasoning, rhetoric, scientific etc. The turing test measures conversational intelligence , and the article you showed doesn't seem to show a quote from him saying that it doesn't measure intelligence, but turing would probably agree it doesn't measure some sort of general intelligence, just one facet.

[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

LLMs don’t do this though, it doesn’t do a lookup of past SAT questions it’s seen and answer it, it uses some process of “reasoning” to do it.

The "reasoning" in LLM is literally statistical probability of which word would follow which word. It has no real concept of what it talks about beyond the pre-built relationship matrices between words and language rules. That's why LLMs confidently hallucinate obvious bullshit time to time - to them there's no meaning to either truthful or absolute bonkers text, it's just words that should probably follow each other.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

All inference is just statistical probability. Every answer you give outside of your direct experience is just you infering what might be the answer. Even things we hold as verifiable truth that we haven't experienced is just a guess that the person who told it to us isn't lying or has some sort of proof to there statement.

Take some piece of knowledge like "Biden won the 2020 election" me and you would probably agree this is the truth, but we can't possibly "know" it's the truth or connect it to some verifiable experience, we never counted every ballot or were at every polling station. We "know" it's the truth because more people, and more respectable people, told us it was and our brain makes a statistical guess that their answer is right based on their weight. Just like an LLM other people will hallucinate or bullshit and come on the other side of that guess and assert the opposite and even make up stuff to go along with that story.

This in essence is what reasoning is, you weigh the possibilities of either side being correct, and pick the one that has more weight. That's why science, an epistemological application of reason, is so heavily reliant on statistics..

[+] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is not how LLMs work, they are not a database nor do they have access to one. They are a trained neural net with a set of weights on matrices that we don't fully understand. We do know that it can't possibly have all the information from its training set since the training sets (measured in tb or pb) are orders of magnitude bigger than the models (measured in gb). The llm itself is just what it learned from reading all the training data, just like how you don't memorize every passage in a book you read, just core concepts, relationships and lessons. So if I ask you " who was gatsbys love interest?" You don't remember the line and page of the text that says he loves Daisy, your brain just has a strong connection of neurons between Gatsby, Daisy , love, longing etc. that produces the response "Daisy". The same is true in an LLM, it doesn't have the whole of the great Gatsby in its model but it too would have a strong connection somewhere between Gatsby, Daisy, love etc. to answer the question.

What your thinking of are older chatbots like Siri or Google assistant which do have a set of preset responses mixed in with some information from a structured database.

[+] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If LLMs were just lossy encodings of their database they wouldn't be able to answer any questions outside of there training set. They can though, and quite well as shown by the fact you can give it completely made up information that it can't possibly have "seen" and it will go along with it and give plausible answers. That is where it's intelligence lyes and what separates it from older chatbots like Siri that cannot infer and are bound by the database they pull from.

How do you explain the hallucinations if the llm is just a complex lookup engine? You can't lookup something you've never seen.

[+] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Auto complete is not a lossy encoding of a database either, it's a product of a dataset, just like you are a product of your experiences, but it is not wholly representative of that dataset.

A wind tunnel is not intelligent because it doesn't answer questions or process knowledge/data it just creates data. A wind tunnel will not answer the question "is this aerodynamic" but you can observe a wind tunnel and use your intelligence to process that and answer the question.

Temperature and randomness don't explain hallucinations, they are a product of inference. If you turned the temperature down to 0 and asked it the question " what happened in the great Christmas fire of 1934" it will give it's best guess of what happened then even though that question is not in it's dataset and it can't look up the answer. The temperature would just mean that between runs it would consistently give the same story, the one that is most statistically probable, as opposed to another one that may be less probable but was pushed up due to randomness. Hallucinations are a product of inference, of taking something at face value then trying to explain it. People will do this too, if you tell someone a lie confidently then ask them about it they will use there intelligence to rationalize a story about what happened.

[+] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not saying it doesn't encode some of its training data, I'm saying it's not just encoding its training data. It probably does "memorize" a bunch of trivial facts from its training data and regurgitate them when asked. I'm saying that's not all they are and that's not what makes the intelligent, their ability to also answer questions outside their training data is.

[+] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It can answer questions as well as any person. Just because you may need to check with another source doesn't mean it didn't answer the question it just means you can't fully trust it. If I ask someone who's the fourth u.s. president and they say Jefferson they still answered the question, they just answered it wrong. You also don't have to check with another source in the same way you do with asking a person a question, if it sounds right. If that person answered Madison and I faintly recall it and think it sounds right I will probably not check their answer and take it as fact.

For example I asked chatgpt for a chocolate chip cookie recipe once. I make cookies pretty often so would know if the recipe seemed off but the one it provided seemed good, I followed it and made some pretty good cookies. It answered the question correctly as shown by the cookies. You could argue it plagiarized but while the ingredients and steps were pretty close to some I found later none were a perfect match which is about as good as you can get with recipes which tend to converge in the same thing. The only real difference between most of them is the dumb story they give at the beginning which thankfully chatgpt doesn't do.

The 7th grader and plagiarism comment make me think you haven't played with them much or really tested them. I have had it write contracts, one of which I had reviewed by a lawyer who only had some small comments, as well as other letters and documents I needed for my mortgage and buying a home. All of these were looked over by proffesionals and none of them realized it was a bot. None of them were plagiarized too because the parameters I gave it and the output it created were way too unique to be in its training set.

[+] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That study is like giving a written test to an illiterate adult, seeing them do worse than a child and saying they aren't intelligent or innovative. Like I said earlier intelligence is multi-faceted, and chatgpt excels at rhetorical, conversational and other types of written intelligence. It does not, as that study shows, do well in spatial manipulation, that doesn't mean it's not intelligent. If you gave that same test to a paralyzed blind person with little to no concept of spatial reality they'd probably do just as bad. If you asked them to compose a short story or an essay they might be good at it because that's where they're capabilities lye. That short story could still be innovative in its composition and characters, and could be way better than anything a child wrote.

You have to measure different types of intelligence with different tests. If you asked chatgpt and a set of adults and children to write a short story about a wholey new subject chatgpt would beat most of the children and probably some of the adults.

And if that short story is about a new subject matter completey out of its training set what/who is it plagiarizing from? You could say it's taking common tropes, themes and story elements from other stories, but that's fundamentally what a lot of writing and culture is. If that's plagiarism then you should be more worried about the marvel franchise as it's a plagiarism machine that has way more cultural impact.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 year ago

Id much rather have a hoodie that i can use to connect and interface with devices then an always online chip implement. I am rooting for this one.

hood

[–] matthewmercury@reddthat.com 17 points 1 year ago

This is clearly a derivative of the work done by Doctor Emmett Brown in the mid 1950s.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let me guess: not covered by the Fifth Amendment in the US. Its not your words or thoughts, its your brainwaves. No different than testing your BAC against your will

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's a pretty clear violation of the 4th amendment. Won't stop companies from building this tech into their wireless headphones, though.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How's that working for defendants' these days? ~~Wasn't there a big case in Pennsylvania invalidating this in some sneaky way or something?~~

~~Something something Foregone conclusion doctrine~~

[–] mhague@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing comes up when you search Pennsylvania + foregone conclusion. Unless you mean police making you give up passwords, which was deemed illegal by higher courts.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No but aren't there many exceptions to 4th and variably so? Its seems like its not so clear cut these days

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, 4th amendment is pretty cut and dried.

With the exception of Terry Stops.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

immigration
random checkpoints
alcohol checkpoints
?

[–] thesorehead@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Or maybe build it into some neat cowboy hats?

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Will a thin layer of alluminum stop this?

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Ahh yes, thought crime time.

[–] carnimoss@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

I just made a comment saying people can't read my mind and now this

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 1 points 1 year ago

Only a sensor-filled helmet? Amazing. So much better then the previous model which required removing the brain the cutting it into thin slices.