←back to thread

LLMs understand nullability

(dmodel.ai)
169 points mattmarcus | 1 comments | 07 Apr 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
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 #
1. 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.