“Have an internal world model,” or “give the
appearance of having an internal world model”?
(Disclaimer: I’ve only read the summary, not the full paper)
Recent papers about advanced Go-playing AIs have made it abundantly clear that, at best, their conceptual understanding of Go is deeply flawed, and at worst, completely absent. Yet under most circumstances they give the appearance of super-human understanding based on superhuman play.
Do we have any reason to think LLMs are different? That they understand anything beyond “this is the best word to go next here.”
To be clear, LLM output is remarkable, all the more so if the above is true.
(Disclaimer: I’ve only read the summary, not the full paper)
Recent papers about advanced Go-playing AIs have made it abundantly clear that, at best, their conceptual understanding of Go is deeply flawed, and at worst, completely absent. Yet under most circumstances they give the appearance of super-human understanding based on superhuman play.
Do we have any reason to think LLMs are different? That they understand anything beyond “this is the best word to go next here.”
To be clear, LLM output is remarkable, all the more so if the above is true.