Skip to content

Comment on Why Are LLMs So Gullible?parent

Comments

I don't know. This feels like an unfair question to ask. You've proposed a basically impossible engineering problem and then declared that the outcome will obviously be the outcome that you want it to be.

What if I answer, "No because humans have supernatural souls."

You can easily answer, "Souls don't exist, therefore I'm still right."

But then we actually build your machine and it turns out that Penrose's non-computable microtubules really exist and the machine is useless.

We can't know the result of such an ambitious endeavor before we go through with it. So it doesn't make much sense to me to use such a thought experiment as evidence for something much lesser that is currently contested.

You think it's unfair to ask whether a simulation of a person can think in a discussion on whether some particular class of algorithm can think? Lacking a clear definition of what exactly an LLM is and what thinking is, I can't think of a single more germane question (aside from what those definitions are, I suppose).

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.