Quick Introduction We have all been on forums, chats, reddit, discord, youtube, or somewhere and heard “Oh! Model XYZ is AMAZEBALLZ!zomgwtfbbq” then downloaded it (or more likely, some quantized form of it) and said “eww… This sucks!” This post is going to be a rather technical series of experiments to demonstrate the impact of implementation-specific hazards with inference. I will be using the term “reference implementation” to describe the lab that published and offers first-party hosting of ...
Having “real intelligence” is not a sufficient requirement to decide over which systems are sentient or not e.g. there are very low IQ “real intelligences”.
Dictionary defintions serve for a partial understanding but are not enough to understand scientific concepts, especially definitions that are not under scientific consensus. Moreover, current AI systems, including tool-assisted LLMs can satisfy these definitions.
Since you like exercising your brain, I’d recommend reading about sophisms.
Note that I am not asserting that LLMs are sentient, but that your statement is too confident and that the subject requires actual care.
LLMs cannot fulfill these definitions.
Try to explain to me how an LLM could fit the definitions of “conscious” or “sentient”.
If you understood how computers work and also had a firm grasp on the English language, you would understand that there is no way to use either of those words to accurately describe a computer program.
Yes they can, easily. That doesn’t mean they are sentient though. Just that these are too broad to mean anything.
Have you ever trained a neural network, or studied how they work? I highly doubt so, and I highly doubt you are the computer omniscient you are pretending to be.
If you believe an LLM could fulfill either of those definitions then you either don’t understand how an LLM works, or you don’t understand the definitions of those words.
Can’t wait for you to detail the transformers architecture