←back to thread

LLMs understand nullability

(dmodel.ai)
169 points mattmarcus | 3 comments | 07 Apr 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
EncomLab ◴[07 Apr 25 15:24 UTC] No.43612568[source]▶
This is like claiming a photorestor controlled night light "understands when it is dark" or that a bimetallic strip thermostat "understands temperature". You can say those words, and it's syntactically correct but entirely incorrect semantically.
replies(6): >>43612607 #>>43612629 #>>43612689 #>>43612691 #>>43612764 #>>43612767 #
nsingh2 ◴[07 Apr 25 15:29 UTC] No.43612629[source]▶
Where is the boundary where this becomes semantically correct? It's easy for these kinds of discussions to go in circles, because nothing is well defined.
replies(1): >>43612960 #
1. nativeit ◴[07 Apr 25 16:02 UTC] No.43612960[source]▶
Hard to define something that science has yet to formally outline, and is largely still in the realm of religion.
replies(2): >>43613202 #>>43613541 #
2. EMIRELADERO ◴[07 Apr 25 16:26 UTC] No.43613202[source]▶
That depends entirely on whether you believe understanding requires consciousness.

I believe that the type of understanding demonstrated here doesn't. Consciousness only comes into play when we become aware that such understanding has taken place, not on the process itself.

3. stefl14 ◴[07 Apr 25 16:59 UTC] No.43613541[source]▶
Shameless plug of personal blog post, but relevant. Still not fully edited, so writing is a bit scattered, but crux is we now have the framework for talking about consciousness intelligently. It's not as mysterious as in the past, considering advances in non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the Free Energy Principle in particular.

https://stefanlavelle.substack.com/p/i-am-therefore-i-feel