The Truth about AI is Devastating: Proof by MIT, Harvard
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Related videos
A Hard Conversation About the San Diego Mosque Shooting
StevenCrowder
110.4k views
AI Whistleblower: We Are Being Gaslit By The AI Companies! They’re Hiding The Truth About AI!
The Diary Of A CEO
47.0k views
The Mind-Body Reset: The Truth About Stress Eating, Dieting, & How to Feel Better Now
Mel Robbins
35.6k views
The Truth About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting
StevenCrowder
13.8k views
Trump HIT with DEVASTATING BLOW as PROSECUTOR is TOSSED
Legal AF
28.6k views
The Truth is Finally Coming Out… About Health Freedom
Dr. Eric Berg DC
100.3k views
Sheduer Sanders Is About To PROVE The Haters Wrong
The Arena
80.1k views
Trump Faces DEVASTATING DISCOVERY as Lawsuit THREAT BACKFIRES?!?
Legal AF
160.2k views
Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Harsh Truth About Horoscopes (sorry but it’s true)
The Diary Of A CEO
1.6m views
The truth about my husband is heartbreaking.
Dr. Boz [Annette Bosworth, MD]
111.0k views
Top Comments (10)
I think anyone who has used LLMs for anything substantial will have realized that they do not actually understand anything. This doesn't mean they are not useful tools, but those expecting AGI are going to have to wait a while longer.
They forgot to put into the prompt: "you are the world leading expert in physics, like Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler..."
Turns out llms work exactly like other ML models 😂
This actually points to a deeper misconception in the field of AI development. The idea that a _language_ model would be conducive to _thinking._ I feel like a lot of people mistakenly conflate the process of thinking with the process of expressing the thoughts. A chimp that can throw a rock at a target already intuitively understands Newtonian physics. We need not a _language_ model, but a _thought_ model.
It’s not a formalized experiment with inductive bias controls, but I have noticed that when I push co-coding models into really weird use cases, they completely breakdown, like even forgetting syntax. This tells me they cannot extrapolate, only pattern match. In fact, they don’t even have a model of the language syntax.
Thanks for sharing. According to a recent Anthropic paper, LLMs employ parallel processing and heuristic-based shortcuts to come with believable answers, particularly in mathematical tasks, without truly grasping the fundamental ideas—that is, without putting the human-crafted techniques they acquired from the training dataset to use. They seem to be very good at anticipating "what," but not so much "why."
Well… Apple DID try to warn us of this.
There is a lot of magical thinking around AI
No matter how many cards you add to a card catalog, in the end it's still a card catalog.
This is the same for coding it is very clear that even the most state of the art models do not actually fundamentally understand what's happening with the variables and control structures within the code they are merely piecing together various patterns.
Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge
- Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
- Chat with videos, export text & PDF
- $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research
Free forever plan • All features unlocked
Top Comments (10)
I think anyone who has used LLMs for anything substantial will have realized that they do not actually understand anything. This doesn't mean they are not useful tools, but those expecting AGI are going to have to wait a while longer.
They forgot to put into the prompt: "you are the world leading expert in physics, like Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler..."
Turns out llms work exactly like other ML models 😂
This actually points to a deeper misconception in the field of AI development. The idea that a _language_ model would be conducive to _thinking._ I feel like a lot of people mistakenly conflate the process of thinking with the process of expressing the thoughts. A chimp that can throw a rock at a target already intuitively understands Newtonian physics. We need not a _language_ model, but a _thought_ model.
It’s not a formalized experiment with inductive bias controls, but I have noticed that when I push co-coding models into really weird use cases, they completely breakdown, like even forgetting syntax. This tells me they cannot extrapolate, only pattern match. In fact, they don’t even have a model of the language syntax.
Thanks for sharing. According to a recent Anthropic paper, LLMs employ parallel processing and heuristic-based shortcuts to come with believable answers, particularly in mathematical tasks, without truly grasping the fundamental ideas—that is, without putting the human-crafted techniques they acquired from the training dataset to use. They seem to be very good at anticipating "what," but not so much "why."
Well… Apple DID try to warn us of this.
There is a lot of magical thinking around AI
No matter how many cards you add to a card catalog, in the end it's still a card catalog.
This is the same for coding it is very clear that even the most state of the art models do not actually fundamentally understand what's happening with the variables and control structures within the code they are merely piecing together various patterns.