Comment by jxjnskkzxxhx
15 days ago
I don't think the difference is material, between "they learn probabilities" Vs "they learn how they want a sentence to continue". Seems like an implementation detail to me. In fact, you can add a temperature, set it to zero, and you become deterministic, so no probabilities anywhere. The fact is, they learn from examples of sequences and are very good at finding patterns in those sequences, to a point that they "sound human".
But the point of my response was just that I find it an extremely surprising how well an idea as simple as "find patterns in sequences" actually works for the purpose of sounding human, and I'm suspicious of anyone who pretends this isn't incredible. Can we agree on this?
I don't find anything surprising about that. What humans generally see of each other is little more than outer shells that are made out of sequenced linguistic patterns. They generally find that completely sufficient.
(All things considered, you may be right to be suspicious of me.)
Nah, to me you're just an average person on the internet. If the recent developments don't surprise you, I just chalk it up to lack of curiosity. I'm well aware that people like you exist, most people are like that in fact. My comment was referring to experts specifically.
>how well an idea as simple as "find patterns in sequences" actually works for the purpose of sounding human
What surprises me is the assumption that there's more than "find patterns in sequences" to "sounding human" i.e. to emitting human-like communication patterns. What else could there be to it? It's a tautology.
>If the recent developments don't surprise you, I just chalk it up to lack of curiosity.
Recent developments don't surprise me in the least. I am, however, curious enough to be absolutely terrified by them. For one, behind the human-shaped communication sequences there could previously be assumed to be an actual human.