But reasoning about it is intelligent, and the point of this study is to determine the extent to which these models are reasoning or not. Which again, has nothing to do with emotions. And furthermore, my initial question about whether or not pattern following should automatically be disqualified as intelligence, as the person summarizing this study (and notably not the study itself) claims, is the real question here.
Sorry, I can see why my original post was confusing, but I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m not claiming that I know the way humans reason. In fact you and I are on total agreement that it is unscientific to assume hypotheses without evidence. This is exactly what I am saying is the mistake in the statement “AI doesn’t actually reason, it just follows patterns”. That is unscientific if we don’t know whether or “actually reasoning” consists of following patterns, or something else. As far as I know, the jury is out on the fundamental nature of how human reasoning works. It’s my personal, subjective feeling that human reasoning works by following patterns. But I’m not saying “AI does actually reason like humans because it follows patterns like we do”. Again, I see how what I said could have come off that way. What I mean more precisely is:
It’s not clear whether AI’s pattern-following techniques are the same as human reasoning, because we aren’t clear on how human reasoning works. My intuition tells me that humans doing pattern following seems equally as valid of an initial guess as humans not doing pattern following, so shouldn’t we have studies to back up the direction we lean in one way or the other?
I think you and I are in agreement, we’re upholding the same principle but in different directions.
But for something like solving a Towers of Hanoi puzzle, which is what this study is about, we’re not looking for emotional judgements - we’re trying to evaluate the logical reasoning capabilities. A sociopath would be equally capable of solving logic puzzles compared to a non-sociopath. In fact, simple computer programs do a great job of solving these puzzles, and they certainly have nothing like emotions. So I’m not sure that emotions have much relevance to the topic of AI or human reasoning and problem solving, at least not this particular aspect of it.
As for analogizing LLMs to sociopaths, I think that’s a bit odd too. The reason why we (stereotypically) find sociopathy concerning is that a person has their own desires which, in combination with a disinterest in others’ feelings, incentivizes them to be deceitful or harmful in some scenarios. But LLMs are largely designed specifically as servile, having no will or desires of their own. If people find it concerning that LLMs imitate emotions, then I think we’re giving them far too much credit as sentient autonomous beings - and this is coming from someone who thinks they think in the same way we do! The think like we do, IMO, but they lack a lot of the other subsystems that are necessary for an entity to function in a way that can be considered as autonomous/having free will/desires of its own choosing, etc.
This sort of thing has been published a lot for awhile now, but why is it assumed that this isn’t what human reasoning consists of? Isn’t all our reasoning ultimately a form of pattern memorization? I sure feel like it is. So to me all these studies that prove they’re “just” memorizing patterns don’t prove anything other than that, unless coupled with research on the human brain to prove we do something different.
Ah, good distinction!
Children definitely still experience something similar via small/unknown YouTube channels, games, Roblox games, fandoms, etc. Sure everyone knows the big famous stuff, but that’s the same as pre-2000s kids too.
Sorry, my examples maybe didn’t make clear what my issue with the post is. The fact that public support for Israel in Western Europe is at the lowest point ever recorded, is not really a “YSK”, it’s not a piece of advice or tip that I can use in my daily life. It’s good information, but it belongs under News, or Politics. It’s not, as the sidebar says “things that can make your life easier”, unless you went to argue that it psychologically makes my life easier, in which case then I can fit just about anything into this community, in which case why do I even have the community? If everything belongs in the community, then the community may as well not exist.
Just think of how much better and more honest this post would have been if it had been made in a news community with a title that was just the title of the article and then a link to the article. But by being posted here in this manner, it comes across as engagement bait - and yes, the title is definitely contributing to that. Is it really news to anyone that people don’t like genocidal murderous bastards? Is that really something “I should know”?
Technically anything that’s news could also be posted here, if we take the definition of the community at its most literal level. But if that’s the case, why should we have a separate news community and a ysk community? Clearly, there should be some sort of distinction between things that belong in ysk versus in the various news communities.
But in all practicality, every Lemmy user already knows about Israeli genocidal behavior in Gaza. If every community just becomes format-differentiated reposts of the same stuff, all of Lemmy becomes one big content-blob.
Even if I totally agree that, for example, Elon Musk is obnoxious, and I want to hear some news that he got punched in the face - I don’t want to open Lemmy and see:
You should know Elon Musk got punched in the face
Mildly interesting: Elon Musk got punched in the face
Mildly infuriating: Whoever punched Elon Musk in the face didn’t punch him hard enough
Map porn: Countries where Elon Musk has been punched in the face
Gaming: Would you play a Punch Elon Musk In The Face Simulator?
Am I the asshole: for thinking Elon Musk deserved to be punched in the face?
Programmer Humor: if(isElonMusk){punchedInFace = True;}
Privacy: If it’s illegal to punch Elon in the face why is it legal to punch my privacy in the face with tracking?
LinuxMemes: sudo punch Elon Musk in face
Uplifting news: Elon Musk punched in face
Depressing news: Elon Musk not punched twice in face
Television: Just watched this character get punched in the face. Remind you of anyone?
Classic Rock: “Facepunch” - 1982
Piracy: Links to movies where billionaires get punched in the face?
I love this comment so much. One of the biggest things that destroyed the quality of Reddit, although this is almost never talked about, was the trend of shoehorning the same topic into every subreddit, no matter how niche. Then to make matters worse, people will insist on leaving the post in an unsuitable community just because they like the sentiment of the post. But over time this means that the purpose of communities completely breaks down, and the whole site just becomes “different formats for us all to express the same take on the same current event”. Absolutely insidious. Entire purpose of communities is so that people can customize their experience and see different types of content depending on what they’re interested in. Forcing the same topic into every community not only makes the service insufferable, but it also means there’s no point to joining small communities or contributing to them. You devolve to everyone just looking at the top most popular stuff, because all they would see anywhere else is just cutesy forced variants on that same thing anyways. Do not force topics into every community.
Again: Do not force topics into every community.
University course lectures are still the best and you can find tons of them in YouTube in their entirety.
The problem is the location of the steepness makes the difference between whether this means it’s easy first and slow progress later, or slow progress first and easy later. Is it like, x^1.5, or is it like ln(x)? Both are very steep at some point.
Yeah, I don’t think the phrase “learning curve” has any built-in suggestion, even culturally, to imply that the reasonable default assumption is one way or the other. I only ever heard learning curve to refer to something getting easier after awhile, which is indeed a valid curve
Yeah this is a common misunderstanding I’ve had to clarify to people as well, even people who work in tech. I support only using “Law” for things that are scientifically actually laws. I don’t even like to use it as a joke (Murphy’s Law) because, unbelievably, some people really do take that to be a law of the universe too.
Yeah, a lot of these things actually do make sense, just in a more precise way than even the people using them intend. Gravitational pull is also like this. Earth’s gravitational pull is not weak, it literally keeps everything on Earth tethered to it. More importantly, it happens as an intrinsic property of the Earth, the Earth doesn’t need to “try” to exert gravitational pull on things. Furthermore, gravitational pull attracts more mass which begets even more gravitational pull, like a snowball effect.
So gravitational pull is not about the strength of the force, but the fact that it is natural, effortless, and often forms a positive feedback loop (borrowing from another comment here lol).
So if I say someone at work has a lot of gravitational pull, I’m conveying that they do a good job of bringing other people into their area or work, that they naturally do it almost without even trying to, and that as their social influence grows, they just end up with even more social influence. It’s a really deep metaphor which is also physically accurate.
Hm, this is interesting. I only have a passing understanding of control theory, but couldn’t a positive feedback loop indeed be good when the output is always desirable in increased quantities? A positive feedback loop doesn’t necessarily lead to instability, like you said. So maybe this is just me actually-ing your actually, lol.
As for “more optimal”, oof, I say that a lot so maybe I’m biased. When I say that I’m thinking like a percentage. If optimal is X, then 80% of X is indeed more of the optimal amount than 20% of X. Yes, optimality is a point, but “more optimal” just seems like shorthand for “closer to optimal”. Or maybe I should just start saying that?
This reminds me of a professor I had who hates when people say something is “growing exponentially”, since he argued the exponent could be 1, or fractional, or negative. It’s a technically correct distinction, but the thing is that people who use that term to describe something growing like x^2, are not even wrong that it’s exponential. I feel like when it comes to this type of phrasing, it’s fine not to deal with edge cases, because being specific actually makes what is said more confusing.
“I’m in a negative feedback loop with respect to my laziness which will soon stabilize with me continually going to the gym daily, which is closer to optimal than before. As a result, my energy levels are going to increase exponentially, where the value of the exponent is greater than 1!”
Hmm. Now that I say it that doesn’t seem that crazy. Although I do still think some common “default settings” don’t do any harm.
But how can I deplatform the demagogues? It seems impossible. What you proposed sounds nearly as unattainable as the snarky “Suddenly make every parent in the US loving, compassionate, and effective at raising their children”.
I’m not in charge of the demagogues platforms. The platforms have no need to respond to social protests since the demagogues make them money. The majority of moderate people will not ever care enough to stop using a platform that supports evil. Tons of people still use facebook even when they KNOW about all those scandals, because they feel like it’s just not a big problem, and ultimately because they just like using facebook.
Your proposed solution just feels a lot like the how to draw an owl meme.
So then can anything that produces dopamine be addictive? Can I get addicted to hugging my girlfriend, or addicted to reading books, or jogging? Or is there some threshold? Does the intensity per time matter, or just the intensity, or just the time? What about the frequency of exposure? Does any amount of dopamine release make me slightly more addicted to whatever it is, or is there some threshold that needs to be exceeded? Do dopamine-based addictions produce physical withdrawal symptoms, always, never, sometimes? Depending on what? And are physical withdrawal symptoms necessary to constitute addiction or are there different tiers of addiction?
You see what I’m getting at. There’s sooo many questions that need to be answered before just saying “this produces lots of dopamine therefore it’s addictive and bad and should be limited”. While I appreciate and empathize with your sentiment about people cherry-picking the studies they like (sounding like an LLM here lol), it’s not as if science doesn’t know how to deal with that problem, and it certainly isn’t a reason to stop caring about or citing studies at all, or say “well you’ve got your studies and I’ve got mine”. Just because both sides have studies that give evidence in their favor doesn’t mean both sides are equally valid or that it’s impossible to reach an informed conclusion one way or the other.
My next biggest question (and what I’m trying to drive at with the semi-rhetorical slew of questions I opened with) would be what makes something an addiction or not? Am I addicted to staying alive, because I’ll do anything to stay alive as long as possible? That seems silly to call an addiction, since it doesn’t do any harm. And how do we delineate between, say, someone who is addicted to playing with Rubik’s Cubes vs. someone who just really likes Rubik’s Cubes and has poor self-control? Or what about someone with some other mental quirk, like someone who plays with Rubik’s Cubes a lot due to OCD, or maybe an autistic person who plays a lot with Rubik’s Cubes out of a special interest? Does the existence of such people mean that “Rubik’s Cube Addiction” is a real concern that can happen to anyone who plays with Rubik’s Cubes too much? Or perhaps Rubik’s cubes are not addictive at all, and it is separate traits driving people to engage with them in a way that appears addictive to others.
I know I’ve written a long post and asked lots of questions. It’s not my intention to “gish gallop” you, just to convey my variety of questions. The Rubik’s example is the one thing I’m most curious to hear your thoughts on. (There I go sounding like an LLM again)
In the same sense that some users might post only articles about ICE in California, or only articles about hurricanes in Florida, I still think that’s not very strange. Some people are particularly invested in specific topics. Maybe the author is or is close to rape victims and is therefore especially interested in it. People dedicate their whole lives and careers to specific activist topics, so I don’t think it’s too strange for someone to dedicate most of their posting activity on one particular website to one. Anyways, I’m not sure what the ulterior motive would be here anyways - what do you think is the real reason for posting so many articles about rape?