Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. Technology
  3. Anthropic has developed an AI 'brain scanner' to understand how LLMs work and it turns out the reason why chatbots are terrible at simple math and hallucinate is weirder than you thought

Anthropic has developed an AI 'brain scanner' to understand how LLMs work and it turns out the reason why chatbots are terrible at simple math and hallucinate is weirder than you thought

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Technology
technology
163 Posts 97 Posters 658 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • funnyusername@lemmy.worldF [email protected]

    anything that claims it "thinks" in any way I immediately dismiss as an advertisement of some sort. these models are doing very interesting things, but it is in no way "thinking" as a sentient mind does.

    L This user is from outside of this forum
    L This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote on last edited by
    #59

    You know they don't think - even though "It's a peculiar truth that we don't understand how large language models (LLMs) actually work."?

    It's truly shocking to read this from a mess of connected neurons and synapses like yourself. You're simply doing fancy word prediction of the next word /s

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S [email protected]

      It doesn't, who the hell cares if someone allowed it to break "predict whole text" into "predict part by part, and then "with rhyme, we start at the end". Sounds like a naive (not as in "simplistic", but as "most straightforward") way to code this, so given the task to write an automatic poetry producer, I would start with something similar. The whole thing still stands as fancy auto-complete

      L This user is from outside of this forum
      L This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote on last edited by
      #60

      But how is this different from your average redditor?

      S 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • I [email protected]

        "Ask Claude to add 36 and 59 and the model will go through a series of odd steps, including first adding a selection of approximate values (add 40ish and 60ish, add 57ish and 36ish). Towards the end of its process, it comes up with the value 92ish. Meanwhile, another sequence of steps focuses on the last digits, 6 and 9, and determines that the answer must end in a 5. Putting that together with 92ish gives the correct answer of 95," the MIT article explains."

        That is precisrly how I do math. Feel a little targeted that they called this odd.

        kolanaki@pawb.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
        kolanaki@pawb.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #61

        I use a calculator. Which an AI should also be and not need to do weird shit to do math.

        I J S G 4 Replies Last reply
        0
        • cm0002@lemmy.worldC [email protected]

          That bit about how it turns out they aren't actually just predicting the next word is crazy and kinda blows the whole "It's just a fancy text auto-complete" argument out of the water IMO

          L This user is from outside of this forum
          L This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote on last edited by
          #62

          I mean it implies that they CAN start with the conclusion or the "thought" and then generate the text to verbalize that.

          It's shocking to what length humans will go to explain how their wetware neural network is fundamentally different and it's impossible for LLMs to think or reason in any way. Honestly LLMs teach us more about human intelligence (or the lack thereof) than machine intelligence. Like obi wan said, "The ability to speak does not make one intelligent" haha.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M [email protected]

            That has always been the case. Even basic programs need debugging sometimes, so we developed debuggers.

            L This user is from outside of this forum
            L This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote on last edited by
            #63

            No it hasn't. When you program you break down the problem into many smaller sub programs and then codify them. There are errors that need debugging. But never "how does this part of the program I wrote work?".

            There are some cases like detergents, apparently until recently we didn't know exactly how it works. But human engineered tools are not comparable to this.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B [email protected]

              The other day I asked an llm to create a partial number chart to help my son learn what numbers are next to each other. If I instructed it to do this using very detailed instructions it failed miserably every time. And sometimes when I even told it to correct specific things about its answer it still basically ignored me. The only way I could get it to do what I wanted consistently was to break the test down into small steps and tell it to show me its progress.

              I'd be very interested to learn it's "thought process" in each of those scenarios.

              L This user is from outside of this forum
              L This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #64

              It's like that "Joey Repeat After Me" meme from friends haha

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • P [email protected]

                This is great stuff. If we can properly understand these “flows” of intelligence, we might be able to write optimized shortcuts for them, vastly improving performance.

                L This user is from outside of this forum
                L This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote on last edited by
                #65

                Better yet, teach AI to write code replacing specific optimized AI networks. Then automatically profile and optimize and unit test!

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • kolanaki@pawb.socialK [email protected]

                  I use a calculator. Which an AI should also be and not need to do weird shit to do math.

                  I This user is from outside of this forum
                  I This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #66

                  Fascist. If someone does maths differently than your preference, it's not "weird shit". I'm facile with mental math despite what's perhaps a non-standard approach, and it's quite functional to be able to perform simple to moderate levels of mathematics mentally without relying on a calculator.

                  R artichoke99@lemm.eeA kolanaki@pawb.socialK L 4 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • kolanaki@pawb.socialK [email protected]

                    I use a calculator. Which an AI should also be and not need to do weird shit to do math.

                    J This user is from outside of this forum
                    J This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #67

                    Function calling is a thing chatbots can do now

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • I [email protected]

                      Fascist. If someone does maths differently than your preference, it's not "weird shit". I'm facile with mental math despite what's perhaps a non-standard approach, and it's quite functional to be able to perform simple to moderate levels of mathematics mentally without relying on a calculator.

                      R This user is from outside of this forum
                      R This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #68

                      Wtf hahahahaha

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • dual_sport_dork@lemmy.worldD [email protected]

                        when a calculator from the 80s can do the same thing.

                        1970's! The little blighters are even older than most people think.

                        Which is why I find it extra hilarious / extra infuriating that we've gone through all of these contortions and huge wastes of computing power and electricity to ultimately just make a computer worse at math.

                        Math is the one thing that computers are inherently good at. It's what they're for. Trying to use LLM's to perform it halfassedly is a completely braindead endeavor.

                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                        [email protected]
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #69

                        But who is going around asking these bots to specifically do math? Like in normal usage, Ive never once done that because I could just use a calculator or spreadsheet software if I need to get fancy lol

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • cm0002@lemmy.worldC [email protected]
                          This post did not contain any content.
                          V This user is from outside of this forum
                          V This user is from outside of this forum
                          [email protected]
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #70

                          Someone put 69 to research and then to article. Nice trolling.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zoneG This user is from outside of this forum
                            gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zoneG This user is from outside of this forum
                            [email protected]
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #71

                            How I'd do it is basically

                            72 * (10+3)

                            (72 * 10) + (72 * 3)

                            (720) + (3*(70+2))

                            (720) + (210+6)

                            (720) + (216)

                            936

                            Basically I break the numbers apart into easier chunks and then add them together.

                            manticore@lemmy.nzM 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • I [email protected]

                              Fascist. If someone does maths differently than your preference, it's not "weird shit". I'm facile with mental math despite what's perhaps a non-standard approach, and it's quite functional to be able to perform simple to moderate levels of mathematics mentally without relying on a calculator.

                              artichoke99@lemm.eeA This user is from outside of this forum
                              artichoke99@lemm.eeA This user is from outside of this forum
                              [email protected]
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #72

                              OK but the llm is evidently shit at math so its "non-standard" approach should still be adjusted

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • I [email protected]

                                Fascist. If someone does maths differently than your preference, it's not "weird shit". I'm facile with mental math despite what's perhaps a non-standard approach, and it's quite functional to be able to perform simple to moderate levels of mathematics mentally without relying on a calculator.

                                kolanaki@pawb.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                                kolanaki@pawb.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                                [email protected]
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #73

                                I am talking about the AI. It's already a computer. It shouldn't need to do anything other than calculate the equations. It doesn't have a brain, it doesn't think like a human, so it shouldn't need any special tools or ways to help it do math. It is a calculator, after all.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • M This user is from outside of this forum
                                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                                  [email protected]
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #74

                                  I wouldn't even attempt that in my head.
                                  I can't keep track of things and then recall them later for the final result.

                                  H 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • funnyusername@lemmy.worldF [email protected]

                                    anything that claims it "thinks" in any way I immediately dismiss as an advertisement of some sort. these models are doing very interesting things, but it is in no way "thinking" as a sentient mind does.

                                    S This user is from outside of this forum
                                    S This user is from outside of this forum
                                    [email protected]
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #75

                                    Anybody who claims they don't "think" before we even figure out completely how they work and even how human thoughts work are just spreading anti-AI sentiment beyond what is considered logical.

                                    You should become a better example than an AI by only arguing based on facts rather than things you hallucinate if you want to prove your own position on this matter.

                                    T 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • N [email protected]

                                      This reminds me of learning a shortcut in math class but also knowing that the lesson didn't cover that particular method. So, I use the shortcut to get the answer on a multiple choice question, but I use method from the lesson when asked to show my work. (e.g. Pascal's Pyramid vs Binomial Expansion).

                                      It might not seem like a shortcut for us, but something about this LLM's training makes it easier to use heuristics. That's actually a pretty big deal for a machine to choose fuzzy logic over algorithms when it knows that the teacher wants it to use the algorithm.

                                      mudman@fedia.ioM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      mudman@fedia.ioM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      [email protected]
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #76

                                      You're antropomorphising quite a bit there. It is not trying to be deceptive, it's building two mostly unrelated pieces of text and deciding the fuzzy logic is getting it the most likely valid response once and that the description of the algorithm is the most likely response to the other. As far as I can tell there's neither a reward for lying about the process nor any awareness of what the process was anywhere in this.

                                      Still interesting (but unsurprising) that it's not getting there by doing actual maths, though.

                                      N 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • I [email protected]

                                        "Ask Claude to add 36 and 59 and the model will go through a series of odd steps, including first adding a selection of approximate values (add 40ish and 60ish, add 57ish and 36ish). Towards the end of its process, it comes up with the value 92ish. Meanwhile, another sequence of steps focuses on the last digits, 6 and 9, and determines that the answer must end in a 5. Putting that together with 92ish gives the correct answer of 95," the MIT article explains."

                                        That is precisrly how I do math. Feel a little targeted that they called this odd.

                                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        [email protected]
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #77

                                        I think it's odd in the sense that it's supposed to be software so it should already know what 36 plus 59 is in a picosecond, instead of doing mental arithmetics like we do

                                        At least that's my takeaway

                                        S 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • semperverus@lemmy.worldS [email protected]

                                          Which is exactly how we do it.

                                          thisisnothim@sopuli.xyzT This user is from outside of this forum
                                          thisisnothim@sopuli.xyzT This user is from outside of this forum
                                          [email protected]
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #78

                                          We also check to see if the word that popped into our heads actually rhymes by saying it out loud. Actual validation steps we can take is a bigger difference than being a little more robust.

                                          We also have non-list based methods like breaking the word down into smaller chunks to try to build up hopefully more novel rhymes. I imagine professionals have even more tools, given the complexity of more modern rhyme schemes.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups