I don't think anyone understands how they work- these type of explanations aren't very complete or accurate. Such explanations/models allow one to reason out what types of things they should be capable of vs incapable of in principle regardless of scale or algorithm tweaks, and those predictions and arguments never match reality and require constant goal post shifting as the models are scaled up.
We understand how we brought them about via setting up an optimization problem in a specific way, that isn't the same at all as knowing how they work.
I tend to think in the totally abstract philosophical sense, independent of the type of model, at the limit of an increasingly capable function approximator trained on an increasingly large and diverse set of real world cause/effect time series data, you eventually develop and increasingly accurate and general predictive model of reality organically within the model. Some model types do have fundamental limits in their ability to scale like this, but we haven't yet found one with these models.
It is more appropriate to objectively test what they can and cannot do, and avoid trying to infer what we expect from how we think they work.
Magic wasn’t mentioned here. We don’t understand the emerging behavior, in the sense that we can’t reason well about it and make good predictions about it (which would allow us to better control and develop it).
This is similar to how understanding chemistry doesn’t imply understanding biology, or understanding how a brain works.
There's no belief or magic required, the word 'reasoning' is used here to refer to an observed capability, not a particular underlying process.
We also don't understand exactly how humans reason, so any claims that humans are capable of reasoning is also mostly an observation about abilities/capabilities.
> We understand how we brought them about via setting up an optimization problem in a specific way, that isn't the same at all as knowing how they work.
You're mistaking "knowing how they work" with "understanding all of the emergent behaviors of them"
If I build a physics simulation, then I know how it works. But that's a separate question from whether I can mentally model and explain the precise way that a ball will bounce given a set of initial conditions within the physics simulation which is what you seem to be talking about.
> You're mistaking "knowing how they work" with "understanding all of the emergent behaviors of them"
By knowing how they work I specifically mean understanding the emergent capabilities and behaviors, but I don't see how it is a mistake. If you understood physics but knew nothing about cars, you can't claim to understand how a car works "simple, it's just atoms interacting according to the laws of physics." That would not let you, e.g. explain its engineering principles or capabilities and limitations in any meaningful way.
I don't think anyone understands how they work- these type of explanations aren't very complete or accurate. Such explanations/models allow one to reason out what types of things they should be capable of vs incapable of in principle regardless of scale or algorithm tweaks, and those predictions and arguments never match reality and require constant goal post shifting as the models are scaled up.
We understand how we brought them about via setting up an optimization problem in a specific way, that isn't the same at all as knowing how they work.
I tend to think in the totally abstract philosophical sense, independent of the type of model, at the limit of an increasingly capable function approximator trained on an increasingly large and diverse set of real world cause/effect time series data, you eventually develop and increasingly accurate and general predictive model of reality organically within the model. Some model types do have fundamental limits in their ability to scale like this, but we haven't yet found one with these models.
It is more appropriate to objectively test what they can and cannot do, and avoid trying to infer what we expect from how we think they work.