Comment by saaaaaam

I really should re-read the series. I enjoyed it when I read it back in 2000 but it's a faded memory now.

Without saying anything specific to spoil plot poonts, I will say that I ended-up having a kidney stone while I was reading the last two books of the series. It was fucking eerie.

We're literally running out of science fiction topics faster than we can create new ones

If I started a list with the things that were comically sci Fi when I was a kid, and are a reality today, I'd be here until next Tuesday.

Zero percent chance this is anything other than laughably bad. The fact that they're trotting it out in front of the press like a double spaced book report only reinforces this theory. It's a transparent attempt by someone at the CIA to be able to say they're using AI in a meeting with their bosses.

Sounds like using Instagram posts to determine what someone really looks like

How is this different than chatbots cosplaying?

"The Man With The President's Mind" — fantastic 1977 novel by Ted Allbeury

https://www.amazon.com/Man-Presidents-Mind-Ted-Allbeury/dp/0...

I predict very rich people will pay to have LLMs created based on their personalities.

Oh. That explains a lot about USA's foreign policy, actually. (Lmao)

[flagged]

In which way?

Wrong language. The Arthur of legend is a Celtic-speaking Briton fighting against the Germanic-speaking invaders. Old English developed from the language of his enemies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_language_decline_in_Eng...

Actually, this made me discover the character, thanks. I see your point and get the fun out of myself. On the other hand, at least in this case I don't pretend to cover some catastrophic results. :)

This is the 2023 take on LLMs. It still gets repeated a lot. But it doesn’t really hold up anymore - it’s more complicated than that. Don’t let some factoid about how they are pretrained on autocomplete-like next token prediction fool you into thinking you understand what is going on in that trillion parameter neural network.

Sure, LLMs do not think like humans and they may not have human-level creativity. Sometimes they hallucinate. But they can absolutely solve new problems that aren’t in their training set, e.g. some rather difficult problems on the last Mathematical Olympiad. They don’t just regurgitate remixes of their training data. If you don’t believe this, you really need to spend more time with the latest SotA models like Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.

Nontrivial emergent behavior is a thing. It will only get more impressive. That doesn’t make LLMs like humans (and we shouldn’t anthropomorphize them) but they are not “autocomplete on steroids” anymore either.

> LLMs are just seemingly intelligent autocomplete engines

Well, no, they are training set statistical predictors, not individual training sample predictors (autocomplete).

The best mental model of what they are doing might be that you are talking to a football stadium full of people, where everyone in the stadium gets to vote on the next word of the response being generated. You are not getting an "autocomplete" answer from any one coherent source, but instead a strange composite response where each word is the result of different people trying to steer the response in different directions.

An LLM will naturally generate responses that were not in the training set, even if ultimately limited by what was in the training set. The best way to think of this is perhaps that they are limited to the "generative closure" (cf mathematical set closure) of the training data - they can generate "novel" (to the training set) combinations of words and partial samples in the training data, by combining statistical patterns from different sources that never occurred together in the training data.

Are you sure about this?

LLMs are like a topographic map of language.

If you have 2 known mountains (domains of knowledge) you can likely predict there is a valley between them, even if you haven’t been there.

I think LLMs can approximate language topography based on known surrounding features so to speak, and that can produce novel information that would be similar to insight or innovation.

I’ve seen this in our lab, or at least, I think I have.

Curious how you see it.

> a brain can innovate, and as of this moment, an LLM cannot because it relies on previously available information.

Source needed RE brain.

Define innovate, in a way that a LLM can't and we definitively can prove a human can.

Respectfully, you're not completely wrong, but you are making some mistaken assumptions about the operation of LLMs.

Transformers allow for the mapping of a complex manifold representation of causal phenomena present in the data they're trained on. When they're trained on a vast corpus of human generated text, they model a lot of the underlying phenomena that resulted in that text.

In some cases, shortcuts and hacks and entirely inhuman features and functions are learned. In other cases, the functions and features are learned to an astonishingly superhuman level. There's a depth of recursion and complexity to some things that escape the capability of modern architectures to model, and there are subtle things that don't get picked up on. LLMs do not have a coherent self, or subjective central perspective, even within constraints of context modifications for run-time constructs. They're fundamentally many-minded, or no-minded, depending on the way they're used, and without that subjective anchor, they lack the principle by which to effectively model a self over many of the long horizon and complex features that human brains basically live in.

Confabulation isn't unique to LLMs. Everything you're saying about how LLMs operate can be said about human brains, too. Our intelligence and capabilities don't emerge from nothing, and human cognition isn't magical. And what humans do can also be considered "intelligent autocomplete" at a functional level.

What cortical columns do is next-activation predictions at an optimally sparse, embarrassingly parallel scale - it's not tokens being predicted but "what does the brain think is the next neuron/column that will fire", and where it's successful, synapses are reinforced, and where it fails, signals are suppressed.

Neocortical processing does the task of learning, modeling, and predicting across a wide multimodal, arbitrary depth, long horizon domain that allow us to learn words and writing and language and coding and rationalism and everything it is that we do. We're profoundly more data efficient learners, and massively parallel, amazingly sparse processing allows us to pick up on subtle nuance and amazing wide and deep contextual cues in ways that LLMs are structurally incapable of, for now.

You use the word hallucinations as a pejorative, but everything you do, your every memory, experience, thought, plan, all of your existence is a hallucination. You are, at a deep and fundamental level, a construct built by your brain, from the processing of millions of electrochemical signals, bundled together, parsed, compressed, interpreted, and finally joined together in the wonderfully diverse and rich and deep fabric of your subjective experience.

LLMs don't have that, or at best, only have disparate flashes of incoherent subjective experience, because nothing is persisted or temporally coherent at the levels that matter. That could very well be a very important mechanism and crucial to overcoming many of the flaws in current models.

That said, you don't want to get rid of hallucinations. You want the hallucinations to be valid. You want them to correspond to reality as closely as possible, coupled tightly to correctly modeled features of things that are real.

LLMs have created, at superhuman speeds, vast troves of things that humans have not. They've even done things that most humans could not. I don't think they've done things that any human could not, yet, but the jagged frontier of capabilities is pushing many domains very close to the degree of competence at which they'll be superhuman in quality, outperforming any possible human for certain tasks.

There are architecture issues that don't look like they can be resolved with scaling alone. That doesn't mean shortcuts, hacks, and useful capabilities won't produce good results in the meantime, and if they can get us to the point of useful, replicable, and automated AI research and recursive self improvement, then we don't necessarily need to change course. LLMs will eventually be used to find the next big breakthrough architecture, and we can enjoy these wonderful, downright magical tools in the meantime.

And of course, human experts in the loop are a must, and everything must be held to a high standard of evidence and review. The more important the problem being worked on, like a law case, the more scrutiny and human intervention will be required. Judges, lawyers, and politicians are all using AI for things that they probably shouldn't, but that's a human failure mode. It doesn't imply that the tools aren't useful, nor that they can't be used skillfully.

> LLMs are just seemingly intelligent autocomplete engines

BINGO!

(I just won a stuffed animal prize with my AI Skeptic Thought-Terminating Cliché BINGO Card!)

Sorry. Carry on.

It wouldn’t be totally implausible to use that phrase between the wars. The name “the First World War” was used as early as 1920, although not very common.

I seem to recall reading that as a kid too, but I can't find it now. I keep finding references to "Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective" about a Civil War sword being fake (instead of a Great War one), but with the same plot I'd remembered.

I remember that the brother of my grandmother who fought in ww1 called it simply "the war" ("sa gherra" in his dialect/language).

Pendragon?