I don't know where this comes from because this is literally wrong. It sounds like chomsky dismissing current AI trends because of the mathematical beauty of formal grammars.
First of all, it's a black-box algorithm with pretty universal capabilities when viewed from our current SOTA view. It might appear primitive in a few years, but right now the pure approximation and generalisation capabilities are astounding. So this:
> It sees goat, lion, cabbage, and looks for something that said goat/lion/cabbage
can not be stated as truth without evidence. Same here:
> it's not assigning entities with parameters to each item. It does care about things like sentence structure and what not
Where's your evidence?
The enormous parameter space coupled with our so far best performing network structure gives it quite a bit of flexibility. It can memorise things but also derive rules and computation, in order to generalise. We do not just memorise everything, or look up things into the dataset. Of course it learned how to solve things and derive solutions, but the relevant data-points for the puzzle could be {enormous set of logic problems} where it derived general rules that translate to each problem. Generalisation IS NOT trying to find the closest data-point, but finding rules explaining as much data-points, maybe unseen in the test-set, as possible. A fundamental difference.
I am not hyping it without belief, but if we humans can reason then NNs can potentially also. Maybe not GPT-4. Because we do not know how humans do it, so an argument about intrinsic properties is worthless. It's all about capabilities. Reasoning is a functional description as long as you can't tell me exactly how we do it. Maybe wittgenstein could help us: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". As long as there's no tangible definition of reasoning it's worthless to discuss it.
If we want to talk about fundamental limitations we have to talk about things like ChatGPT-4 not being able to simulate because it's runtime is fundamentally limited by design. It can not recurse. It can only run only a fixed number of steps, that are always the same, until it has to return an answer. So if there's some kind of recursion learned through weights encoding programs intercepted by later layers, the recursion depth is limited.
First of all, it's a black-box algorithm with pretty universal capabilities when viewed from our current SOTA view. It might appear primitive in a few years, but right now the pure approximation and generalisation capabilities are astounding. So this:
> It sees goat, lion, cabbage, and looks for something that said goat/lion/cabbage
can not be stated as truth without evidence. Same here:
> it's not assigning entities with parameters to each item. It does care about things like sentence structure and what not
Where's your evidence? The enormous parameter space coupled with our so far best performing network structure gives it quite a bit of flexibility. It can memorise things but also derive rules and computation, in order to generalise. We do not just memorise everything, or look up things into the dataset. Of course it learned how to solve things and derive solutions, but the relevant data-points for the puzzle could be {enormous set of logic problems} where it derived general rules that translate to each problem. Generalisation IS NOT trying to find the closest data-point, but finding rules explaining as much data-points, maybe unseen in the test-set, as possible. A fundamental difference.
I am not hyping it without belief, but if we humans can reason then NNs can potentially also. Maybe not GPT-4. Because we do not know how humans do it, so an argument about intrinsic properties is worthless. It's all about capabilities. Reasoning is a functional description as long as you can't tell me exactly how we do it. Maybe wittgenstein could help us: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". As long as there's no tangible definition of reasoning it's worthless to discuss it.
If we want to talk about fundamental limitations we have to talk about things like ChatGPT-4 not being able to simulate because it's runtime is fundamentally limited by design. It can not recurse. It can only run only a fixed number of steps, that are always the same, until it has to return an answer. So if there's some kind of recursion learned through weights encoding programs intercepted by later layers, the recursion depth is limited.