[FRIAM] AI possibilities

Steve Smith sasmyth at swcp.com
Fri Apr 7 15:21:49 EDT 2023

>> Or ... or ... they counter the conventional wisdom that *humans* 
>> generalize their learning or reasoning beyond text. We are the OG bots.

I am fascinated by the "bootstrapping" that semantic/syntactic recursion 
seems to imply.   I'm looking for examples in these LLMs where this is 
exposed.   It seems that at the level of sophistication GPT4 is 
responding, this must be common?

It feels as if there might be a surprisingly robust "house of cards" 
built entirely of lexical units which are stacked very cleverly together 
(in an echo of the patterns of the artificial neural net connections 
made while training an LLM?) and you are suggesting that this is roughly 
what human learning/understanding looks like as well...

Lakoff and Nunez's "embodiment" arguements seem to suggest that even if 
there may be some elaborate card-stacking going on, there is a 
foundation (in human understanding) of sensorial/sentient/qualia 
experiences they ground out upon/in?

If we tentatively accept this account, then I wonder what LLMs are 
grounded in?  It would seem maybe "hallucinations" of sensorial experiences?

So: from the horse's mouth:

    what are LLMs' structures grounded out in?

    Language models such as LLMs (large language models) are grounded in
    vast amounts of textual data that they are trained on. The
    structures of LLMs are derived from the statistical patterns and
    regularities that are present in the data. These patterns are then
    encoded as learned parameters in the neural network architecture of
    the language model.

    In other words, the structures of LLMs are not explicitly programmed
    by humans, but are instead learned from large datasets of natural
    language text. This allows LLMs to capture the complex and subtle
    patterns of natural language, including its syntax, semantics, and

    While LLMs are not directly grounded in embodied experiences, as in
    the theory of embodied mind, they do reflect the linguistic and
    cultural context in which the data they are trained on was produced.

> I do really appreciate this duality/tension:   I think you were the 
> first to alert me to this a few thousand messages back (before 
> LLMs/GPT talk, etc erupted here) though I vaguely remember Marcus 
> making a (qualitatively) similar statement as well.  I think his 
> comment was about whether human (early childhood in particular) was 
> anything different from "emulation".
>> On 4/7/23 09:15, Steve Smith wrote:
>>>     These findings counter the conventional wisdom that LLMs are 
>>> merely statistical next-word predictors and can’t generalize their 
>>> learning or reasoning beyond text.
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230407/1bfec709/attachment.html>

More information about the Friam mailing list