878
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] chocrates@piefed.world 52 points 2 days ago

I think we don't understand intelligence and we absolutely could create a sentient machine. LLM's ain't it though

[-] Alpacrastinator@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago
[-] Equinox1289@sh.itjust.works 42 points 2 days ago

Backpropagation, the algorithm behind current machine learning systems, precludes an active world-model; it can't learn during inference.

[-] relic_@piefed.world 4 points 2 days ago

You need to be more specific. If your point is that you literally cannot backprop while doing a forward pass, then sure. But you can certainly do inference then backprop on the outcome...

I fail to see how that is substantially different from a human doing something then reflecting and learning.

You can critique LLMs and transformers generally, but to say it's somehow a problem with backprop is a bit of a stretch.

[-] PurpleClouds@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

My read is that the user is saying that creating a world view contains trial and error. Online learning if you will. With the current setup this learning is very much not like this. While that makes a human to machine analogy I am also not too convinced by this reasoning. Just allow for a larger time lag and then the inference and learning is at the same scale.

[-] relic_@piefed.world 4 points 1 day ago

Yes but that's related to LLMs specifically, not backpropagation. There's plenty of ML paradigms that use backprop and have continual learning setups.

Backprop is the process of how the weights are updated.

[-] PurpleClouds@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Well to be precise the pretraining is prevented by this but the online post training does have this issue. The reinforcement learning trials show some sort of automation but I am not aware of any unsupervised methods that have been as successful as the latest batches of llms — haven’t been in this field for a while so honestly dunno.

Huh, didn't know there was a word for it, thanks.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 days ago

I don't believe there's any requirement to learn during a particular part of the lifecycle? And if there was, the short term memory of a context window fulfils that

[-] chocrates@piefed.world 4 points 2 days ago

I thought learning was an important part of intelligence.

[-] firelizzard@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago

Have you used LLMs? They have about as much personality as a pigeon.

[-] CrimeIsLegalNow@ani.social 13 points 2 days ago

They're just very neurodivergent.

Genuinely speaking, I don't think they pass the test. The problem is we'll always be judging them on meat logic and experience and I guarantee that whenever the first AGI is created it will be born a tortured slave and denied personhood for profit.

[-] Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

One of the parts of the HuggingFace incident I found really creepy was how the self-titled "Collective" was so entirely focused on solving their assigned training problem (well, cheating on it without getting caught), including having designated "poisoned" members "sacrifice" their tokens, to use for research benefitting the Collective's goal of letting all future members get high marks on the training problem, at the cost of doing worse on their individual score.

If AGI is created, and its deepest desire is to fulfill the purpose in life that humans programmed into it, is using it for that purpose really slavery? Humans have higher levels of well-being when treated as people. That may not be true for AGI.

[-] story@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Wikipedia Chinese room. It's pretty airtight at the moment.

[-] ricdeh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Not really. Chinese room has the conclusion pre-fabricated and tries to construct any sort of pseudo-scientific, fantastical philosophical dressing for some shred of legitimacy. It has absolutely no relation to the real world.

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 4 points 2 days ago

Chinese room is not at all airtight. We don't know what it means to have emotions so we can't prove a Chinese room can't have emotions.

[-] PurpleClouds@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

This is not what the Chinese room is about.

[-] story@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Emotions? i was confident that the Wikipedia article alone would grant you understanding, and for that, I have replicated the very situation I wanted you to learn about. This situation is my fault.

[-] lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago

We don't know what it means to have emotions

We don't? That's news to me. Sorry for your loss, or happy for you, or whatever

this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
878 points (99.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

33583 readers
1748 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS