alt Hacker News>LLMs are text model, not world models and that is the root cause of the problem.
Is it though? In the end, the information in the training texts is a distilled proxy for the world, and the weighted model ends up being a world model, just an once-removed one.
Text is not that different to visual information in that regard (and humans base their world model on both).
>Not having a world model is a massive disadvantage when dealing with facts, the facts are supposed to re-inforce each other, if you allow even a single fact that is nonsense then you can very confidently deviate into what at best would be misguided science fiction, and at worst is going to end up being used as a basis to build an edifice on that simply has no support.
Regular humans believe all kinds of facts that are nonsense, many others that are wrong, and quite a few that are even counter to logic too.
And short of omnipresense and omniscience, directly examining the whole world, any world model (human or AI), is built on sets of facts many of which might not be true or valid to begin with.
Replies
People have an actual world model, though, that they have to deal with in order to get the food into their mouths or to hit the toilet properly.
The "facts" that they believe that may be nonsense are part of an abstract world model that is far from their experience, for which they never get proper feedback (such as the political situation in Bhutan, or how their best friend is feeling.) In those, it isn't surprising that they perform like an LLM, because they're extracting all of the information from language that they've ingested.
Interestingly, the feedback that people use to adjust the language-extracted portions of their world models is how demonstrating their understanding of those models seems to please or displease the people around them, who in turn respond in physically confirmable ways. What irritates people about simpering LLMs is that they're not doing this properly. They should be testing their knowledge with us (especially their knowledge of our intentions or goals), and have some fear of failure. They have no fear and take no risk; they're stateless and empty.
Human abstractions are based in the reality of the physical responses of the people around them. The facts of those responses are true and valid results of the articulation of these abstractions. The content is irrelevant; when there's no opportunity to act, we're just acting as carriers.
I really think it is, this is the exact same thing that keeps going wrong in these conversations over-and-over again. There simply is no common sense, none at all, just a likelihood of applicability. To the point that I even wonder how it is possible to get such basic stuff for which there is an insane amount of support wrong.
I've had an hour long session which essentially revolved around why the landing gear of an aircraft is at the bottom, not at the top of the vehicle (paraphrased for good reasons but it was really that basic). And this happened not just once, but multiple times. Confident declarations followed by absolute nonsense, I've even had - I think it was ChatGPT - try to gaslight me with something along the lines of 'you yourself said' on something that I did not say (this is probably the most person like thing I've seen it do).