Oh, now I see where the misunderstanding lies! Contrary to what you say, I don't think laypeople are wrong in saying LLMs are dumb because physicists are using them to learn physics. I'm just stating the interesting contrast between where ones and the others choose to put the emphasis when thinking about--or using--these tools. LLMs can …
Oh, now I see where the misunderstanding lies! Contrary to what you say, I don't think laypeople are wrong in saying LLMs are dumb because physicists are using them to learn physics. I'm just stating the interesting contrast between where ones and the others choose to put the emphasis when thinking about--or using--these tools. LLMs can be both dumb and useful physics tutors. How you choose to conceptualize them says more about you than about them, poor shapeless amoebas; mirrors of our frustrations and object of our projections.
I believe everything else you wrote is downstream from having misunderstood my position and argument, perhaps a result of my non-bias toward physicists, whom I don't consider more overconfident than the general person--if anything I'd say they're more aware of what they don't know than the laypeople who confidently frame LLMs to match their biased--and tragically close-minded--preconceptions.
Thanks for your reply. After a first scan I was tempted to "like" it and leave it there, but your last sentence made me unsure of whether there was an implicit ad hominem snipe there. Also, why do you base your argument on my supposed "frustrations" and "projections"? I didn't make any comments personally directed at you.
Your OP says "Why do laypeople feel so confident declaring that large language models are dumb, know nothing, make foolish mistakes, or engage in faulty reasoning—extrapolating anecdotal instances to define their entire understanding of this technology—but knowledgeable physicists are using them to learn physics? [¶] Brown’s words should make you reconsider your idea of what AI is capable of."
This is the seed of the alleged misunderstanding. What did I miss? Why would anyone need to reconsider, if they're not among those who are wrong, in your view?
I note also that you don't base your argument on anything about under-the-hood LLM technology per se that "laypeople" misunderstand and that physicists do understand. The basis of your argument is simply the anecdotal testimony of one physicist in a podcast, that physicists are comfortable with using LLMs. A classic instance of appeal to authority.
I don't think my argument about WTTATMS relies on the overconfidence vel non of any particular profession: it's a more general epistemological problem, and at the level of an individual user. To that extent my remarks about overconfidence could be seen as gratuitous, and I apologize -- although I included myself as a self-deprecated object of those remarks. Apropos of that, physics has been part of my career and my recreational interests for half a century. I'm not sure how my positive bias towards physicists could create the misunderstanding you speak of.
(BTW, I said physicists on the whole were more overconfident than most *experts,* not people in general. Evidence for this is not only personal observation of individuals (anecdotal! and therefore wrong, right?), but that one more often sees physicists and economists trying to reduce other fields, e.g. biology or education, to the categories of their own field rather than the other way round. Of course there are many individual exceptions, too -- some of my best friends are physics profs, etc. 🙂)
Finally, I wasn't sure whether you included me as among "those laypeople who confidently frame LLMs to match their biased--and tragically close-minded--preconceptions." There may be such people, but I'd never heard of LLMs until early 2023. Then I tried using them and also read David Foster's book 2nd ed. and consulted with experts at my university. So my conceptions are ex post, not ex ante. But why should I need to demonstrate my lack of "tragically close-minded preconceptions" when I've been a premium subscriber to this Substack for more than a year? -- Happy New Year 🎉
I didn't refer to your frustrations or projections, though. I'm referring to those of laypeople (particularly critics of LLMs). (That "you" in the sentence is not a you "you" but a generic "you". Could have said "how one chooses to conceptualize...")
Reconsidering one's idea of something can be to correct a wrong view but also to expand an incomplete one. It's the latter in this case.
I don't see anything wrong with appeal to authority if it makes sense beyond just authority. Physicists are experts in physics. The fact that they are using LLMs to learn physics should tell people the kind of thing an LLM can do. It's not just dumb or a generator of unreliable slop.
Finally, no I sure didn't include you in that last sentence. Again, I'm only talking about the people I refer to in the OP.
Oh, now I see where the misunderstanding lies! Contrary to what you say, I don't think laypeople are wrong in saying LLMs are dumb because physicists are using them to learn physics. I'm just stating the interesting contrast between where ones and the others choose to put the emphasis when thinking about--or using--these tools. LLMs can be both dumb and useful physics tutors. How you choose to conceptualize them says more about you than about them, poor shapeless amoebas; mirrors of our frustrations and object of our projections.
I believe everything else you wrote is downstream from having misunderstood my position and argument, perhaps a result of my non-bias toward physicists, whom I don't consider more overconfident than the general person--if anything I'd say they're more aware of what they don't know than the laypeople who confidently frame LLMs to match their biased--and tragically close-minded--preconceptions.
Thanks for your reply. After a first scan I was tempted to "like" it and leave it there, but your last sentence made me unsure of whether there was an implicit ad hominem snipe there. Also, why do you base your argument on my supposed "frustrations" and "projections"? I didn't make any comments personally directed at you.
Your OP says "Why do laypeople feel so confident declaring that large language models are dumb, know nothing, make foolish mistakes, or engage in faulty reasoning—extrapolating anecdotal instances to define their entire understanding of this technology—but knowledgeable physicists are using them to learn physics? [¶] Brown’s words should make you reconsider your idea of what AI is capable of."
This is the seed of the alleged misunderstanding. What did I miss? Why would anyone need to reconsider, if they're not among those who are wrong, in your view?
I note also that you don't base your argument on anything about under-the-hood LLM technology per se that "laypeople" misunderstand and that physicists do understand. The basis of your argument is simply the anecdotal testimony of one physicist in a podcast, that physicists are comfortable with using LLMs. A classic instance of appeal to authority.
I don't think my argument about WTTATMS relies on the overconfidence vel non of any particular profession: it's a more general epistemological problem, and at the level of an individual user. To that extent my remarks about overconfidence could be seen as gratuitous, and I apologize -- although I included myself as a self-deprecated object of those remarks. Apropos of that, physics has been part of my career and my recreational interests for half a century. I'm not sure how my positive bias towards physicists could create the misunderstanding you speak of.
(BTW, I said physicists on the whole were more overconfident than most *experts,* not people in general. Evidence for this is not only personal observation of individuals (anecdotal! and therefore wrong, right?), but that one more often sees physicists and economists trying to reduce other fields, e.g. biology or education, to the categories of their own field rather than the other way round. Of course there are many individual exceptions, too -- some of my best friends are physics profs, etc. 🙂)
Finally, I wasn't sure whether you included me as among "those laypeople who confidently frame LLMs to match their biased--and tragically close-minded--preconceptions." There may be such people, but I'd never heard of LLMs until early 2023. Then I tried using them and also read David Foster's book 2nd ed. and consulted with experts at my university. So my conceptions are ex post, not ex ante. But why should I need to demonstrate my lack of "tragically close-minded preconceptions" when I've been a premium subscriber to this Substack for more than a year? -- Happy New Year 🎉
I didn't refer to your frustrations or projections, though. I'm referring to those of laypeople (particularly critics of LLMs). (That "you" in the sentence is not a you "you" but a generic "you". Could have said "how one chooses to conceptualize...")
Reconsidering one's idea of something can be to correct a wrong view but also to expand an incomplete one. It's the latter in this case.
I don't see anything wrong with appeal to authority if it makes sense beyond just authority. Physicists are experts in physics. The fact that they are using LLMs to learn physics should tell people the kind of thing an LLM can do. It's not just dumb or a generator of unreliable slop.
Finally, no I sure didn't include you in that last sentence. Again, I'm only talking about the people I refer to in the OP.
Have a great start to the year!