챗봇 LLM은 점술사의 사기 수법을 재현한다

For the past year or so I’ve been spending most of my time researching the use of language and diffusion models in software businesses. One of the issues in during this research—one that has perplexed me—has been that many people are convinced that language models, or specifically chat-based language models, are intelligent. But there isn’t any mechanism inherent in large language models (LLMs) that would seem to enable this and, if real, it would be completely unexplained. LLMs are not brains and do not meaningfully share any of the mechanisms that animals or people use to reason or think. LLMs are a mathematical model of language tokens. You give a LLM text, and it will give you a mathematically plausible response to that text. There is no reason to believe that it thinks or reasons—indeed, every AI researcher and vendor to date has repeatedly emphasised that these models don’t think. There are two possible explanations for this effect: The tech industry has accidentally invented the initial stages a completely new kind of mind, based on completely unknown principles, using completely unknown processes that have no parallel in the biological world. The intelligence illusion is in the mind of the user and not in the LLM itself. Many AI critics, including myself, are firmly in the second camp. It’s why I titled my book on the risks of generative “AI” The Intelligence Illusion . For the past couple of months, I’ve been working on an idea that I think explains the mechanism of this intelligence illusion. I now believe that there is even less intelligence and reasoning in these LLMs than I thought before. Many of the proposed use cases now look like borderline fraudulent pseudoscience to me. The rise of the mechanical psychic The intelligence illusion seems to be based on the same mechanism as that of a psychic’s con, often called cold reading . It looks like an accidental automation of the same basic tactic. By using validation statements , such as sentences that use the Forer effect , the chatbot and the psychic both give the impression of being able to make extremely specific answers, but those answers are in fact statistically generic. The psychic uses these statements to give the impression of being able to read minds and hear the secrets of the dead. The chatbot gives the impression of an intelligence that is specifically engaging with you and your work, but that impression is nothing more than a statistical trick. This idea was first planted in my head when I was going over some of the statements people have been making about the reasoning of these “AI.” I first thought that these were just classic cases of tech bubble enthusiasm, but no, “AI” has both taken a different crowd and the believers in the “AI” bubble sound very different from those of prior bubbles. — “This is real. It’s a bit worrying, but it’s real.” — “There really is something there. Not sure what to think of it, but I’ve experienced it myself.” — “You need to keep your mind open to the possibilities. Once you do, you’ll see that there’s something to it.” That’s when I remembered, triggered by a blog post by Terence Eden on the prevalence of Forer statements in chatbot replies . I have heard this before. This specific blend of awe, disbelief, and dread all sound like the words of a victim of a mentalist scam artist— psychics . The psychic’s con is a tried and true method for scamming people that has been honed through the ages. What I describe below is one variation. There are many variations, but the core mechanism remains the same. The Psychic’s Con 1. The Audience Selects Itself Most people aren’t interested in psychics or the like, so the initial audience pool is already generally more open-minded and less critical than the population in general. 2. The Scene is Set The initial audience is prepared. Lights are dimmed. The psychic is hyped up. Staff research the audience on social media or through conversation. The audience's demographics are noted. 3. Narrowing Down the Demographic The psychic gauges the information they have on the audience, gestures towards a row or cluster, and makes a statement that sounds specific but is in fact statistically likely for the demographic. Usually at least one person reacts. If not, the psychic will imply that the secret is too embarrassing for the "real" person to come forward, reminds people that they're available for private readings, and tries again. 4. The Mark is Tested The reaction indicates that the mark believes they were “read”. This leads to a burst of questions that, again, sound very specific but are actually statistically generic. If the mark doesn’t respond, the psychic declares the initial read a success and tries again. 5. The Subjective Validation Loop The con begins in earnest. The psychic asks a series of questions that all sound very specific to the mark but are in reality just statistically probable guesses, based on their demographics and prior answers, phrased in a specific, highly confident way. 6. “Wow! That psychic is the real thing!” The psychic ends the conversation and the mark is left with the sense that the psychic has uncanny powers. But the psychic isn’t the real thing. It’s all a con. 1. Audience selection Seers, tarot card readers, psychics, mind readers aren’t all con artists. Sometimes the “psychic” is open about it all just being entertainment and aren’t pretending to be able to contact spirits or read minds. Some psychics do not have a profit motive at all, and without the grift it doesn’t seem fair to call somebody a con artist. But many of them are con artists deliberately fooling people, and they all operate using the same basic mechanisms that begin well before the reading proper. The audience is usually only composed of those already pre-disposed to believe in psychic phenomena and those they have managed to drag with them. Hardcore sceptics will almost always be in a very small minority of the audience, which both makes them easy to manage and provides social pressure on them to tone down their scepticism. Those who attend are primed to believe and are already familiar with the mythology surrounding psychics. All of which helps them manage expectations and frame their performance. 2. Setting the scene Usually the audience is reminded of the ground rules for how psychic readings “work” at the start of the performance. They are helped by the popularisation of these rules by media, cinema, and TV. Everybody now “knows” that: Readings usually begin murky and unclear. They then become clearer as the “connection” to the “spirit world” gets stronger. Errors are expected. The “spirits” are often vague or hard to hear. Non-believers can weaken or even disrupt the connection. Psychics also habitually research their audience, by mapping out their demographics, looking them up on social media, or even with informal interviews performed by staff mingling with attendees before the performance begins. When the lights dim, the psychic should have a clear idea of which members of the audience will make for a good mark. 3. Narrowing down The mark usually chooses themselves. The psychic makes a statement and points towards a row, quickly altering their gesture based on somebody responding visible to the statement. This makes it look like they pointed at the mark right from the beginning. The mark is that way primed from the start to believe the psychic. They’re off-guard. Usually a bit surprised and totally unprepared for the quick burst of questions the psychic offers next. If those questions land and draw the mark in, they are followed by the actual reading. Otherwise, they move on and try again. 4. Testing the mark— Cold reading using subjective validation The con— cold reading —hinges on a quirk of human psychology: if we personally relate to a statement, we will generally consider it to be accurate. This unfortunate side effect of how our mind functions is called subjective validation . Subjective validation