Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Andriyo t1_jedirnp wrote

Reply to comment by theotherquantumjim in The argument that a computer can't really "understand" things is stupid and completely irrelevant. by hey__bert

It is certainly fundamental to our understanding of the world, but if we all forget tomorrow that 1+1 =2 and all math altogether, the world won't stop existing :)

1

theotherquantumjim t1_jednh7n wrote

Whilst this is correct, 1+1=2 will still be true whether there is someone to observe it or not.

1

Andriyo t1_jeds606 wrote

maybe it's my background in software engineering but truthiness to me is just a property that could be assigned to anything :)

say, statement 60 + 2 = 1 is also true in for people who are familiar with how we measure time.

anyway, most children do rote memorize 1+1=2, 1+2 = 3 - they even have posters with tables in school. they also show examples of "car is one","apple is one" etc. so basically what LLMs is doing. anyway, long story short LLMs is capable of doing long arithmetic if you ask it to do it step by step. The only limitation so far is the context length.

1

theotherquantumjim t1_jedspfh wrote

The language and the symbols are simply the tools to learn the inherent truths. You can change the symbols but the rules beneath will be the same. Doesn’t matter if one is called “one” or “zarg” or “egg”. It still means one. With regards LLMs I am very interested to see how far they can extend the context windows and if there are possibilities for long-term memory.

1