Interesting concept
> We begin by proving that Age of Empires II is functionally- and Turing- complete. Then we build a perceptron and a circuit to train it in-game. With that, we argue that changing the substrate (representation) of an LLM also alters the perception of their attributes.
This is fun, but I don't think it's particularly surprising. A substrate being turing-complete alone is enough evidence that you can train and run a perception on it, assuming the available memory is sufficient.
> We then show that research in LLM anthropomorphic attributes cannot be done starting by assuming that these attributes exist (or not) in the system; even if you aim to conclude that they do not exist. This assumption can happen even when you do not make it explicitly! It also shows that there are ways to do good, sound research without needing to make that assumption.
I... don't see how this follows? I wanted to see how this argument unfolded, but it seems the arxiv link on this page is broken? It just links to arxiv.org and the rest of what is on this linked page doesn't seem to cover this second assertion at all.
> Papers asking whether LLMs have such properties are assuming them (e.g., ‘Do LLMs have musical talent’, ‘Do LLMs present empathy’, etc).
This seems like...a very bad definition of "assuming" something? If I ask "do you know how to play the guitar?" I am absolutely not assuming that you know how to play the guitar!
Just because the person asking the question isn’t aware of they’re implicitly making that assumption, doesn’t change the fact that a logical assumption has been made. It just makes the questioner ignorant of the assumptions they’re making.
Personally don’t totally understand the argument being made in the paper. But I can understand the idea that I can ask a question, without properly understanding the assumptions I’m making when asking the questions. Indeed I can also understand that I might not even notice the assumptions I’ve made with my question, and why that would make my entire exploration and conclusion invalid, _after_ doing the investigation. Logical fallacies can be really difficult to spot and understand.
Does your fridge play the banjo? Doesn't make sense does it?
Basically it uses the cool gates alongside vacuous statements like this…
Hence, the purported anthropomorphic attributes of LLMs are empirically non-unique: although some properties (e.g., responses to prompts) could remain invariant, others, such as the interpretation of their perceived behaviour, might change with the substrate.
Which, y’know… is a tough one!
Is that the argument the paper is making? In my reading they seem to primarily be making the point that assigning anthropomorphic concepts to LLM is dangerously misleading, and more importantly, not needed to properly study and evaluate LLMs.
I don’t think you have to make the assumption that humans are unique for that argument to hold up. I would argue that really it’s a comment on how loose and poorly defined all anthropomorphic attributes are. At the end of the day we have to make the assumption that other humans feel and experience broadly the same mental activity as each other, because we’ll never directly experience anyone else conscience, we can only experience our own.
We can barely link our own mental experiences to concrete empirical measurements. The vast majority of the measurements we make are entirely self-reported, and we simply assume strong correlation between self-reported measurements and the individuals actual experiences. We also have to assume that somehow all of our self-reported measurements are “calibrated” to some reasonable degree. Even measuring anthropomorphic properties in humans is pretty fuzzy and inaccurate, the only reason accept such poor data is because it’s the best we’ve got, and there enough signal in there for us to develop useful tools like talking therapy, physiological profiles, mental health scores etc which have some level of predictive and healing power when applied to _humans_.
It’s honestly amazing that what we have works for measuring and predicting humans, and we only know that works through decades of empirical measurement and study. But to then try and directly apply that fuzzy mess to a completely different system, and just assume the same level of predictive power, strikes me as kinda crazy. It requires huge assumptions, which effectively can never be tested (because even the human mind is a total mystery to us), to be made, and if we can study these systems without making those assumptions, then why make the assumptions at all?