Algorithms are not clever in the sense that they don’t make judgments, opinions or choices of their own, they simply absorb input, combine what many others have said, treat those opinions according to set rules and spit out some output based on the input and rules (the functions that reinforce their synapses).
So first off the bat, I’m charitably going to assume that by “algorithms” you mean “LLMs”, but even given that assumption, the satement strikes me as either trivially true, or false. Yes, you could say that they simply take inputs and their rules (rules, I might add, that we don’t know) to create output, but the same could be said for humans – we behave simply according to our environmental inputs and the rules governing how our brains work (rules which differ somewhat person to person and in the same person across time). Yes, LLMs only operate if you prompt them, but prompting them is easy enough to do, and further this can be automated. Likewise, I’m not really sure what meaningful definition would imply that they don’t make judgments, opinions, or choices of their own.
First of all, many many thanks for your time, charity and quickness!! I really appreciate it that you deemed my post worthy of a reply!
Now, as for the reply and the specific points that you raise. First of all, I think I am quite clear and explicit regarding the use of the shorthand LLM and algorithms. Indeed, in the epilogue, I end with the example of the Youtube algorithm, which I believe is an algorithm but not an LLM (please correct me if i’m wrong).
Now, on to your second point. I am puzzled by your assertion in brackets that ‘(rules, I might add, that we don’t know)‘, are you saying that not even the coders who code LLMs know these rules (in this case I’d use the word algorithms, as the rules would in my poor grasp of the matter, be in the forms of algorithms, such as ’if you get prompt X look into dataset Y etc), or do you mean that the rules are not known to the user? I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me.
Finally, could you please explain to me what specific ‘meaningful definition’ your after in your last sentence? I feel a bit lost.
Once again, many thanks for your prompt response, I would love it if my comments elicit another response for you that will allow both of us to reach a synthesis :)
So first off the bat, I’m charitably going to assume that by “algorithms” you mean “LLMs”, but even given that assumption, the satement strikes me as either trivially true, or false. Yes, you could say that they simply take inputs and their rules (rules, I might add, that we don’t know) to create output, but the same could be said for humans – we behave simply according to our environmental inputs and the rules governing how our brains work (rules which differ somewhat person to person and in the same person across time). Yes, LLMs only operate if you prompt them, but prompting them is easy enough to do, and further this can be automated. Likewise, I’m not really sure what meaningful definition would imply that they don’t make judgments, opinions, or choices of their own.
Dear Daniel,
First of all, many many thanks for your time, charity and quickness!! I really appreciate it that you deemed my post worthy of a reply!
Now, as for the reply and the specific points that you raise. First of all, I think I am quite clear and explicit regarding the use of the shorthand LLM and algorithms. Indeed, in the epilogue, I end with the example of the Youtube algorithm, which I believe is an algorithm but not an LLM (please correct me if i’m wrong).
Now, on to your second point. I am puzzled by your assertion in brackets that ‘(rules, I might add, that we don’t know)‘, are you saying that not even the coders who code LLMs know these rules (in this case I’d use the word algorithms, as the rules would in my poor grasp of the matter, be in the forms of algorithms, such as ’if you get prompt X look into dataset Y etc), or do you mean that the rules are not known to the user? I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me.
Finally, could you please explain to me what specific ‘meaningful definition’ your after in your last sentence? I feel a bit lost.
Once again, many thanks for your prompt response, I would love it if my comments elicit another response for you that will allow both of us to reach a synthesis :)
Best Wishes,
Haris