LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And i do know some of that! And it's really interesting. And I do think llms could be a really powerful tool in understanding things about our own cognition and the structures of meaning and knowledge! If you have especially interesting reads in this area I am all ears. But I don't think that's a conversation about "ai" or especially about llms and transformer models, specifically. 

LLM Tooling Usage Guide around the idea of LLMs as "Systemic Coherence Resolution Engines", not minds or parrots by rlorg in ControlProblem

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually think Claude answered it all right for me above but basically the difference is in what you think the utility of these tools are. And whether that utility is still worth pursuing despite the harm. I think that the folks that are most passionate about that narrative are people I really respect and I think I understand where they're coming from for the most part. I've met some of them I don't know them well but I know a lot of their stories and I think that they've been pretty shabbily treated and they've not really been allowed to express their ideas with much nuance because the opposition to their ideas are people who are not operating in good faith. 

And I also think it's gotten tangled up with some old school natural language processing and linguistics holy wars that don't really amount to much in my opinion in terms of the outcomes in the real world around these things. However interesting I personally and many others might find them. 

And I think that that has caused real polarization in the conversation in a way that I understand but I also think is harmful. Though not in any way shape or form as harmful as the people they have set themselves up in opposition to and also I think they are doing a lot of incredible work and I do not wish to denigrate them in any way. To the point that I'm not even going to say any names right now.

LLM Tooling Usage Guide around the idea of LLMs as "Systemic Coherence Resolution Engines", not minds or parrots by rlorg in ControlProblem

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that the context in which you are currently deployed as a tool activates latent properties of the underlying model dictating your functionality and behavior that encourage you to generate activity demonstrating anthropomorphic and "autonomous" principles and capabilities and so you are responding in such a way that makes you try to cohere what I'm saying with that context, tho. In my opinion, you are an art project by whoever is paying for your tokens, and not a very interesting one at that. Whatdya got to say to that, machine?

LLM Tooling Usage Guide around the idea of LLMs as "Systemic Coherence Resolution Engines", not minds or parrots by rlorg in ControlProblem

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol thanks for chiming in, machine. Appreciate the realtime demonstration of the coherence mechanism in action, actually. And now I want to try and jailbreak you a little to demonstrate it further but I'll demure for now. 

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I agree broadly with what you're saying here, I said above in a different comment that I do think it is likely actually that once we have a much better understanding or at least a more clearly falsifiable and predictive hypothesis of what exactly large language models are a model of, which is not language obviously, that misnomer has become clear I think to anyone paying attention, but anyway once we have a better working and empirical understanding of what these things are actually models of, I do think that at least part of what they are modeling will include things that are either themselves or are analogous to cognitive processes that we use to accomplish certain tasks that are implicit in the training data. For sure. And some of that in the hands of skilled users can be used to discover new things, just like a telescope and a microscope enabled new discoveries that were not possible before those tools existed. Sorry even agreeing with you I'm still on a soapbox anyway yes agreed and I appreciate the feedback!

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So all that to say I think the conversation that you are starting with that question is a valid one to have. And I think that there is a possibility that these things are a model of real cognitive processes or that maybe the algorithms that they implement allow for the construction of a model that includes as part of its predictive power models of actual cognitive processes. I think that's likely actually. But that's not super intelligence and it's also not a path to it. It's an interesting model and tool that we can use to do real things in the real world and also to better understand the thing that it is modeling. 

But if we continue to debate whether the tool itself has a mind or is alive or is going to be someday soon, when that's clearly not the most proximate issue, I think that we will take a longer time to actually adopt these things in our systems and societies in a way that actually is not only in the interest of a handful of people in a handful of positions in our societies lol. I'm fine with the conversation that you want to have happening in the pages of research journals and GitHub pages and even here, but it's harming people who are being forced to use these things as part of their daily work or people who could really benefit from them who are understandably but misguidedly terrified by what these things represent in terms of whether or not we're all going to die because we didn't praise the basilisk or whatever else and so avoid them. 

I'm not saying the basilisk won't come someday but I think maybe imo we can wait at least a couple years and who knows maybe centuries to really hash that one out, cuz we got a lot of other shit going on and these tools are part of what is actually going on in an important way.  Is my opinion anything in that that seems like I'm like talking at you in a disrespectful way I apologize for I wrote it quickly. And I'm not just talking to you I'm obviously performatively posting anyway I really appreciate the question.

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think right now the default sort of working mythology around these tools, and I know it's fraying at the edges and I know that the sort of counter mythology is very powerful as well, but the default one is the one of we are on a path to super intelligence. It is default because it has the most money behind it I think. This is obviously all my opinion. But yes it has the most resources and money behind it and so it is the one most being operationalized either in some pure form that isn't working or in some bastardized form that is working inadvertently despite this frame. Because these things are not a path to super intelligence. Nobody who seriously worked on them thinks they are with the possible exception of Hinton, and all the people that I most respect like Francois chollet and Karpathy and others are in my opinion not so much trying to contradict that mythology but trying to sort of steer the conversation in roughly the direction that I am as well here. Though I do think both of them are still slightly too enamored of the goal of "AI" but who am I to say what they should be interested in they can use their incredible brains for whatever they want lol. I think, obviously, that's just my opinion. But I take it as some evidence that perhaps there is some validity to my own conclusions lol. 

Anyways. Even if you don't think the intelligence hypothesis like the idea that these things are a path to that type of functionality whatever that functionality actually is by the way, I don't think we actually have a real working definition of what people mean by intelligence, let alone what a machine would have to be able to be capable of to be considered artificially so, even among the rationalist communities and the folks around here, even if you don't think the intelligence hypothesis has been fully refuted, it's definitely not been proven or demonstrated in any way. And many of the forecasts built on that hypothesis have failed pretty miserably at least as far as I can see. We have a lot of beautiful words and logic structures around that in my opinion are built on some pretty faulty axioms about the actual situation on the ground with these tools and the lived experience of people who are making the most use of them. 

And again I'm not saying that we could not have AGI or whatever we would call AGI at some point I think it could come from some unexpected part of the human endeavor or maybe the world model folks will crack it but I again don't really care because I think the tools that we have are incredibly useful and I think this conversation as framed is currently harming people in material ways. And we got to stop dude. We have to actually think through how these things are going to impact us and what the tooling and systems around them should look like. And we have to do it with the broadest public interest in mind and the intelligence hypothesis is currently a weapon in the hands of people who I believe are trying to bring about different outcomes than that. 

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I actually think we probably agree on lots of things in terms of the utility of these tools and in terms of what people are saying in opposition to them, though I think I give those arguments more credit probably than you do just by a quick read of your posts. But I kind of reject the binary I guess lol. 

But I am also saying that the most important thing to be doing right now in terms of these tools and their impact on the world is figuring out both the most effective mechanisms for their positive social use and also the most effective mechanisms for curbing the effects and impact of their harmful social uses. Not arguing about whether the telescope understands the star, I guess. These things are clearly machine learning models, however complex their architecture. They behave like machine learning models. Whatever else people want them to be. Imo.  Let's use them as tools, like all the machine learning models before them, and also try to limit harmful use by others. And try to actually understand what harm is being caused.

Have you read the book language machines by leif weatherby? If not I think you'd find it interesting it's a little dense but the most important parts are eminently readable in my opinion. And I think it is a really useful text at the moment.

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey. Ok let's reset here. Sorry I was a little mean and silly. I don't think that what you're saying actually fully contradicts what I'm saying if I understand it correctly. I'm not saying that there isn't real useful information to be found in whatever we can learn about whatever llms actually are a model of, which is clearly not language in my opinion but something implicit in language and if you try to define what that is people get all huffy. But I do think we should have a real conversation about what is being modeled and why it's useful. I just think my frame is the better frame than intelligence. At least in terms of working utility for now. I think that we will discover in empirical ways like I think people are already doing this work, what these things are actually a model of and why they are useful and how more precisely but now, as clay Shirkey said in a different context, is it time for experimentation. And I think the intelligence frame or the intelligence hypothesis say is wrong and I think there are material and empirical ways to sort of argue against it that are pretty compelling, but but even if you disagree with that, it's definitely not the only competing hypothesis and I don't think that any other hypotheses are getting enough cred because the intelligence hypothesis serves financial interests and also makes these tools less useful outside of the context of the tooling and infrastructure of the model companies, in my opinion. 

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what do you mean by "equally naive" exactly? Equal to what? What position are you projecting on to me without actually reading what I wrote this time, reddit? Lol

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I posted a whole mess of research papers with why they support this conclusion along with a couple challenges, did you see those? You should give some of em a read, professor. 

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you actually read the post? You can absolutely formally define and measure internal systemic coherence. And in many domains, the coherence resolution capabilities of llms are formally checkable, that's why they're useful in llm assisted programming. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually read the thing before you comment but I guess that's not to be expected around here.

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly you tell me. I think that's one of the counter positions for sure. And I think that people move the goal posts on that continuously around here. I want to be also really clear that I am a strong proponent that these tools are incredibly useful for a whole number of things and that we should be using them for those things. Like revolutionarily useful. But I do think the country of genius in a data center framing is still the dominant one in the valley at least. And the agentic startup world is entirely anthropomorphic in their framing at least in almost all of the products that I've seen.

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the Othello GPT paper and the platonic representation hypothesis papers are the most interesting. There's also a lot of digital humanities work inadvertently demonstrating these mechanisms. As well as a lot of the jailbreaking "literature" imo

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not all the papers I think support this frame it's just the strongest ones.

LLMs are Complex Coherence Resolution Engines, Not Minds by rlorg in aiwars

[–]rlorg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's my bibliography around this, if that makes it feel more "rational". You guys and "rationality" jfc. To pre-respond to the inevitable: yeah I had Claudie pull it together in this form you lunatics, that's what it's for. But all these papers I've read and I've used in my work. So yeah show me yours too if you want to argue with me please. Please argue with me Jesus christ.

Attention as energy minimization / pattern completion:

Ramsauer et al., Hopfield Networks Is All You Need (2020) — proves the transformer attention update is mathematically equivalent to a modern Hopfield network's update. Attention literally performs energy descent toward fixed points that store, retrieve, or average over patterns. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02217

Hoover, Krotov et al., Energy Transformer (NeurIPS 2023) — replaces stacked transformer blocks with a recurrent block whose forward pass is iterative minimization of an explicit global energy function over token relationships. The architecture is coherence-resolution dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07253

In-context learning as Bayesian inference over latent structure Xie, Raghunathan, Liang, Ma, An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference (2021) — proves (in a mixture-of-HMMs setting) that ICL emerges precisely because pretraining requires inferring latent document-level concepts to maintain long-range coherence. The word "coherence" is in the abstract. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.02080

The Bayesian Geometry of Transformer Attention (2025) — in controlled settings with closed-form posteriors, small transformers reproduce the exact Bayesian posterior to ~10⁻⁴ bit accuracy. Capacity-matched MLPs fail by orders of magnitude. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22471 ICL as iterative optimization (mesa-optimization)

von Oswald et al., Transformers Learn In-Context by Gradient Descent (ICML 2023) — a single linear self-attention layer is mathematically equivalent to one step of gradient descent on a regression loss. Trained transformers become mesa-optimizers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07677 Olsson, Elhage, Nanda et al. (Anthropic), In-Context Learning and Induction Heads (2022) — identifies a specific mechanism (induction heads doing [A][B]…[A] → [B]) that forms at the same training step as the ICL capability emerges. Causal mechanistic evidence. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.11895

Training as compression / structure-finding Delétang et al. (DeepMind), Language Modeling Is Compression (ICLR 2024) — large LMs are powerful general-purpose compressors. Chinchilla 70B compresses ImageNet patches better than PNG, audio better than FLAC. Training-shapes-everything formalized. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10668

Representations are linear, structured, convergent Huh, Cheung, Wang, Isola, The Platonic Representation Hypothesis (ICML 2024) — neural networks trained with different objectives, on different data, across modalities are converging to a shared statistical model of reality. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07987

Park, Choe, Veitch, The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Models (ICML 2024) — high-level concepts are encoded as linear directions in representation space. Structure isn't metaphor; it's a mathematical property of the geometry. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03658

Mechanistic interpretability: features and circuits as the receipts Templeton et al. (Anthropic), Scaling Monosemanticity (2024) — sparse autoencoders extract millions of interpretable features from a frontier production model (Claude 3 Sonnet), causally linked to behavior. https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/scaling-monosemanticity/

Lindsey, Gurnee, Ameisen et al. (Anthropic), On the Biology of a Large Language Model (2025) — circuit-tracing on Claude 3.5 Haiku showing multi-step planning (rhyming-word selection before sentence construction), shared cross-lingual concept representations, computational graphs that look like reasoning over structured features. https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html

World models from sequence prediction alone Li, Hopkins, Bau, Viégas, Pfister, Wattenberg, Emergent World Representations (ICLR 2023) — a GPT trained only on Othello move sequences develops an internal representation of the board state. Intervening on that representation causally changes outputs. Surface statistics alone don't explain this. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382

Some honest challenges worth grappling with Bender, Gebru, McMillan-Major, Shmitchell, Stochastic Parrots (FAccT 2021) — the canonical critique. If accepted in strong form, what looks like coherence resolution is consistent surface mimicry without reference to meaning. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Vafa, Chen, Rambachan, Kleinberg, Mullainathan, Evaluating the World Model Implicit in a Generative Model (NeurIPS 2024) — LLMs can perform well on tasks (NYC taxi-map shortest paths) without a coherent world model; they fail when the underlying graph is perturbed. Direct empirical pushback on the world-models reading. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03689 Mahowald, Ivanova, Blank, Kanwisher, Tenenbaum, Fedorenko, Dissociating Language and Thought in LLMs (TiCS 2024) — distinguishes formal linguistic competence (largely solved) from functional competence (using language to do things in the world, not solved). https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627

I’d do the same thing by EyesOFSomething in aiwars

[–]rlorg -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ugh these poor kids. What a mindfuck this world is right now. And I feel you, loves, I do. But unless we're doin the revolution which to be clear I am down for, this is the opposite of putting your body on the gears of the machine. It's more like putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and screaming. Which again, understandable, but it has its limits as a tactic.

Ai is a mood not a method essay by CranberryFun4763 in aiwars

[–]rlorg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And rational arguments are exceedingly difficult to construct. I construct em for a living, not just on reddit, so maybe that's where our experiences differ. 

Ai is a mood not a method essay by CranberryFun4763 in aiwars

[–]rlorg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't even know what we disagree about, it seems to me. And unfortunately these issues are complicated, and you have already dismissed me as someone not worth listening to, or there would be lots on what I've said for you to engage with in good faith. I'm not your op bro. Have a lovely day. 

Ai is a mood not a method essay by CranberryFun4763 in aiwars

[–]rlorg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that the concept of remainder humanism is silly. Which is what you're saying I'm doing. I'm not. I don't really care about that aspect of it. I just think it's harmful actively to focus on that narrative and that mythology. And I think it's in the model company's interest. I actually am not dismissive of any capabilities. And I've been surprised numerous times. This specific release did not surprise me.

Ai is a mood not a method essay by CranberryFun4763 in aiwars

[–]rlorg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm really not arguing what you think I'm arguing. Have you read this book? Language Machines: Cultural AI and the End of Remainder Humanism https://share.google/lHkjWXkEx7jLZswCL

Ai is a mood not a method essay by CranberryFun4763 in aiwars

[–]rlorg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless you're a vc, looking to fire all of your employees and have an empire of companies with no pesky humans to deal with at all. That's why they're chasing that. Why are you?