Someone trying to sell their LLM to the general public, and therefore simplifying the language to convey a concept is not a source.
These nodes pass data to each other, just like how in a brain, neurons pass electrical impulses to each other.
By that definition my dimmer switch functions like a biological brain because it passes electrical impulses.
In this paper, we present Reasoning via Planning (RAP), a novel LLM reasoning framework that equips LLMs with an ability to reason akin to human-like strategic planning
This prevents LLMs from performing deliber-
ate planning akin to human brains,
So does not function like a brain does.
To overcome the limitations, we propose a new LLM reasoning framework
So it’s a proposal for a new framework to mimic it, not how LLMs currently function
Aaand I’m going to stop checking your sources now. If you’re just going to gish gallop every link from a search page you think agrees with you I’m not going to waste my time reading things you clearly didn’t bother to. It took 5 links to get to something that even looks like a source, and it doesn’t say what you think it does.
Read your sources and make sure they say what you think they do. If you present me with another pile of links and the first one is invalid I won’t bother looking at the 2nd.
What you just did is called “digging a deeper hole”.
Like I said, I’ve worked in the industry for over a decade. What I said isn’t even up for debate. If you had a shred of understanding you know how astoundingly wrong what you said is. In fact, if you had a shred of understanding you just flat out wouldn’t have said it.
Amazon is not a source.
Someone trying to sell their LLM to the general public, and therefore simplifying the language to convey a concept is not a source.
Straight up genetic fallacy.
Wikipedia is not a source.
You’re right. It’s not a “source”. It’s a source aggregator. You know that list of little tiny text at the bottom of each page? Those are “references” from credible sources that are cited.
I’ll give you an example. The quote from Wikipedia I provided has a little “1” and a little “2” right at the end of the sentence. If you click on them it’ll take you to the cited source.
The little “1” will bring you to the following page:
Modeled loosely on the human brain, a neural net consists of thousands or even millions of simple processing nodes that are densely interconnected.
particular network layouts or rules for adjusting weights and thresholds have reproduced observed features of human neuroanatomy and cognition, an indication that they capture something about how the brain processes information.
It resembles the human brain in two respects: The knowledge is acquired by the network through a learning process, and interneuron connection strengths known as synaptic weights are used to store the knowledge.
They imitate somewhat the learning process of a human brain because they learn the relationship between the input parameters and the controlled and uncontrolled variables by studying previously recorded data.
ANN is a computational model that is based on a machine learning technique. It works like a human brain neuron system.
Directly linked to in the Science Direct page from Wikipedia:
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational models that attempt to emulate the architecture and function of the human brain (Russell and Norvig, 1995).
So does not function like a brain does.
Now I know you’re either 14 or just not very smart. You directly quoted the source with This prevents LLMs from performing deliber-
ate planning akin to human brains,
It’s literally in the sentence, it said “deliberate planning akin to human brains”. It doesn’t say anywhere in that sentence that neural networks aren’t modelled after brains and it doesn’t say anything about reasoning (the two things you keep refuting).
Aaand I’m going to stop checking your sources now
Convenient for your “argument”.
Read your sources and make sure they say what you think they do
I have. You just can’t read, have reading comprehension issues, or simply can’t understand them.
If you present me with another pile of links and the first one is invalid I won’t bother looking at the 2nd.
I don’t care if you do. Anyone else who reads these comments will see you’re out of your depth.
Since we’re naming fallacies: appeal to authority. I’m a Astronaut Scientist Millionaire Cowboy and I say you’re wrong
What I said isn’t even up for debate.
Begging the question
If you had a shred of understanding you know how astoundingly wrong what you said is. In fact, if you had a shred of understanding you just flat out wouldn’t have said it.
Ad Hominem
You know that list of little tiny text at the bottom of each page? Those are “references” from credible sources that are cited.
Then you should have linked those, not Wikipedia. I’m not going to put more work into this than you are. If you can’t be bothered to find the actual source I’m not going to do it for you.
Modeled loosely on the human brain…
Let me stop you right there.
“Modeled loosely on the human brain.”
So again your source straight up says it does not function like a human brain.
It resembles the human brain in two respects: The knowledge is acquired by the network through a learning process, and interneuron connection strengths known as synaptic weights are used to store the knowledge.
None of that indicates a capacity to reason.
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational models that attempt to emulate the architecture and function of the human brain (Russell and Norvig, 1995).
I thought we were talking about LLMs, not ANNs, and an attempt to emulate does not imply success.
Now I know you’re either 14 or just not very smart.
Ad Hominem
It’s literally in the sentence, it said “deliberate planning akin to human brains”.
Interesting how you cut out the words “prevents the LLM from” that immediately preceded that.
Convenient for your “argument”.
Convenient for dealing with a gish gallop. Not going to waste my time analyzing sources you haven’t even read.
You just can’t read, have reading comprehension issues, or simply can’t understand them.
More Ad Hominem.
Someone with an actual argument doesn’t need to resort to personal attacks every other paragraph. They can simply present their argument. Someone without an actual argument is likely to resort to personal attacks to make the other person go away and stop forcing them to defend their (non)argument, then think they’ve “won” just because the other person isn’t bothering to deal with them anymore.
Anyone else who reads these comments will see you’re out of your depth.
Ah yes, you’ve been getting a lot of “support and agreement” from the other people reading your comments.
Since we’re naming fallacies: appeal to authority. I’m a Astronaut Scientist Millionaire Cowboy and I say you’re wrong
Can you get your fallacy definitions right at least? It’s not appeal to authority if the person being referenced has the qualifications or experience in the subject being discussed. I have worked with the technology for a decade. I’ve trained countless neural network models for various purposes. I understand the technology.
Begging the question
No. You are literally trying to debate established facts.
Ad Hominem
This would be true if I didn’t address the point multiple times. This was me offering an explanation for why you keep getting it wrong.
Then you should have linked those, not Wikipedia
I did link to multiple scientific sources. You just gave up before even getting to halfway.
“Modeled loosely on the human brain.”
So again your source straight up says it does not function like a human brain.
No, it literally says in multiple sections (that I quoted) that neural networks are designed by modelling biological brains. It doesn’t matter if it’s “loosely”, “exactly”, “somewhat”, or “kinda”. It’s modelled “loosely” because the human brain is incredibly complex. Quite possibly the most complex thing known of. The distinction here in the ONE quote you cherry-picked is that it said human brain. The distinction is the word “human”.
Interesting how you cut out the words “prevents the LLM from” that immediately preceded that.
I literally didn’t. It’s literally in my quote on italics. I’ll refer to my previous (ad hom) statement about your reading comprehension.
None of that indicates a capacity to reason.
Then go back to the links you conveniently skipped over.
I thought we were talking about LLMs, not ANNs, and an attempt to emulate does not imply success.
It hurts. You actually hurt my brain. An LLM is literally an artificial neural network. How do trolls like you actually think?
Someone with an actual argument doesn’t need to resort to personal attacks every other paragraph.
Nothing I said is a personal attack. Remaking that you must not have good reading comprehension is insulting, but not a personal attack.
They can simply present their argument.
I have; very simply, in fact. I just genuinely do not think you have the reading comprehension or capacity to understand.
Ah yes, you’ve been getting a lot of “support and agreement” from the other people reading your comments.
Sure, the 10 people who commented on this post who are not reading our convo is such an indication of support.
Remaking that you must not have good reading comprehension is insulting, but not a personal attack.
I was going to reply to other things until I read this. It really displays why continuing is a waste of time. You insist I lack reading comprehension in the same sentence that you insist a literal personal attack is not a personal attack.
Wikipedia is not a source.
Amazon is not a source.
Someone trying to sell their LLM to the general public, and therefore simplifying the language to convey a concept is not a source.
By that definition my dimmer switch functions like a biological brain because it passes electrical impulses.
So does not function like a brain does.
So it’s a proposal for a new framework to mimic it, not how LLMs currently function
Aaand I’m going to stop checking your sources now. If you’re just going to gish gallop every link from a search page you think agrees with you I’m not going to waste my time reading things you clearly didn’t bother to. It took 5 links to get to something that even looks like a source, and it doesn’t say what you think it does.
Read your sources and make sure they say what you think they do. If you present me with another pile of links and the first one is invalid I won’t bother looking at the 2nd.
My god you’re thick.
What you just did is called “digging a deeper hole”.
Like I said, I’ve worked in the industry for over a decade. What I said isn’t even up for debate. If you had a shred of understanding you know how astoundingly wrong what you said is. In fact, if you had a shred of understanding you just flat out wouldn’t have said it.
Straight up genetic fallacy.
You’re right. It’s not a “source”. It’s a source aggregator. You know that list of little tiny text at the bottom of each page? Those are “references” from credible sources that are cited.
I’ll give you an example. The quote from Wikipedia I provided has a little “1” and a little “2” right at the end of the sentence. If you click on them it’ll take you to the cited source.
The little “1” will bring you to the following page:
https://news.mit.edu/2017/explained-neural-networks-deep-learning-0414
Here are some excerpts:
Modeled loosely on the human brain, a neural net consists of thousands or even millions of simple processing nodes that are densely interconnected.
particular network layouts or rules for adjusting weights and thresholds have reproduced observed features of human neuroanatomy and cognition, an indication that they capture something about how the brain processes information.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/artificial-neural-network
It resembles the human brain in two respects: The knowledge is acquired by the network through a learning process, and interneuron connection strengths known as synaptic weights are used to store the knowledge.
They imitate somewhat the learning process of a human brain because they learn the relationship between the input parameters and the controlled and uncontrolled variables by studying previously recorded data.
ANN is a computational model that is based on a machine learning technique. It works like a human brain neuron system.
Directly linked to in the Science Direct page from Wikipedia:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444528551500118
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational models that attempt to emulate the architecture and function of the human brain (Russell and Norvig, 1995).
Now I know you’re either 14 or just not very smart. You directly quoted the source with This prevents LLMs from performing deliber- ate planning akin to human brains,
It’s literally in the sentence, it said “deliberate planning akin to human brains”. It doesn’t say anywhere in that sentence that neural networks aren’t modelled after brains and it doesn’t say anything about reasoning (the two things you keep refuting).
Convenient for your “argument”.
I have. You just can’t read, have reading comprehension issues, or simply can’t understand them.
I don’t care if you do. Anyone else who reads these comments will see you’re out of your depth.
Since we’re naming fallacies: appeal to authority. I’m a Astronaut Scientist Millionaire Cowboy and I say you’re wrong
Begging the question
Ad Hominem
Then you should have linked those, not Wikipedia. I’m not going to put more work into this than you are. If you can’t be bothered to find the actual source I’m not going to do it for you.
Let me stop you right there.
“Modeled loosely on the human brain.” So again your source straight up says it does not function like a human brain.
None of that indicates a capacity to reason.
I thought we were talking about LLMs, not ANNs, and an attempt to emulate does not imply success.
Ad Hominem
Interesting how you cut out the words “prevents the LLM from” that immediately preceded that.
Convenient for dealing with a gish gallop. Not going to waste my time analyzing sources you haven’t even read.
More Ad Hominem.
Someone with an actual argument doesn’t need to resort to personal attacks every other paragraph. They can simply present their argument. Someone without an actual argument is likely to resort to personal attacks to make the other person go away and stop forcing them to defend their (non)argument, then think they’ve “won” just because the other person isn’t bothering to deal with them anymore.
Ah yes, you’ve been getting a lot of “support and agreement” from the other people reading your comments.
Can you get your fallacy definitions right at least? It’s not appeal to authority if the person being referenced has the qualifications or experience in the subject being discussed. I have worked with the technology for a decade. I’ve trained countless neural network models for various purposes. I understand the technology.
No. You are literally trying to debate established facts.
This would be true if I didn’t address the point multiple times. This was me offering an explanation for why you keep getting it wrong.
I did link to multiple scientific sources. You just gave up before even getting to halfway.
No, it literally says in multiple sections (that I quoted) that neural networks are designed by modelling biological brains. It doesn’t matter if it’s “loosely”, “exactly”, “somewhat”, or “kinda”. It’s modelled “loosely” because the human brain is incredibly complex. Quite possibly the most complex thing known of. The distinction here in the ONE quote you cherry-picked is that it said human brain. The distinction is the word “human”.
I literally didn’t. It’s literally in my quote on italics. I’ll refer to my previous (ad hom) statement about your reading comprehension.
Then go back to the links you conveniently skipped over.
It hurts. You actually hurt my brain. An LLM is literally an artificial neural network. How do trolls like you actually think?
Nothing I said is a personal attack. Remaking that you must not have good reading comprehension is insulting, but not a personal attack.
I have; very simply, in fact. I just genuinely do not think you have the reading comprehension or capacity to understand.
Sure, the 10 people who commented on this post who are not reading our convo is such an indication of support.
I was going to reply to other things until I read this. It really displays why continuing is a waste of time. You insist I lack reading comprehension in the same sentence that you insist a literal personal attack is not a personal attack.
Finally something we can agree on. Continuing this is a waste of time.
You don’t accept evidence, so there’s nothing left to be said.