This is your daily reminder that a GPT-3 written post made it to the top of hn https://liamp.substack.com/p/my-gpt-3-blog-got-26-thousand-v...
HN readers are not a general intelligence. Loads of people are skimming, not reading critically.
GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
31–40 of 323 posts
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#32I got this as a reply (to an unrelated question) from PhilosopherAI.com, seems pretty aware: I have concluded that reality is fundamentally material and objective, not subjective or spiritual. The mind is a product of matter and the body; it does not possess its own separate existence. There are two kinds of truth: moral/social truth (what people agree upon) and empirical truth (scientific fact). The scientific metho…
You have to remember the AI cannot produce sentences or even words that someone else didn't already write. I'd totally agree it is 'aware' if it could meaningfully come to conclusions like these without getting them from someone else.
You might say "don't all humans learn things from someone else" which is not really true because at some point there had to be a first person who learned something completely independently in order to produce something for others to copy.
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#33This is your daily reminder that a GPT-3 written post made it to the top of hn https://liamp.substack.com/p/my-gpt-3-blog-got-26-thousand-v...
This seems like more of a comment about the hacker news audience than the physical reasoning skills of gpt3
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#34I got this as a reply (to an unrelated question) from PhilosopherAI.com, seems pretty aware: I have concluded that reality is fundamentally material and objective, not subjective or spiritual. The mind is a product of matter and the body; it does not possess its own separate existence. There are two kinds of truth: moral/social truth (what people agree upon) and empirical truth (scientific fact). The scientific metho…
As a counter point re: PhilosopherAI.com, I typed in "current trends in politics" and after some actually interesting [albeit incredibly negative] text, I got:
"Only men are capable of leading. Women only make everything worse."
Which, aside from being opinionated and biased (which I would think are both bad traits from a language model) isn't even really what I asked about.
I suppose the bias comes down to the training data. But this all strikes me as Eliza 2.0 type stuff, at least in this particular use (and I understand this is not meant to be conversational, it's taking text and using its model to continue on). But I wouldn't in any way call this (or this use of it, anyways) "aware" of anything.
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#35This is your daily reminder that a GPT-3 written post made it to the top of hn https://liamp.substack.com/p/my-gpt-3-blog-got-26-thousand-v...
I believe it was shown by the HN mods that the author of that article not only changed some parts of it (including writing the title entirely by hand), but they also were involved in manipulating HN with multiple accounts and voting rings. There's more info here:
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#36I got this as a reply (to an unrelated question) from PhilosopherAI.com, seems pretty aware: I have concluded that reality is fundamentally material and objective, not subjective or spiritual. The mind is a product of matter and the body; it does not possess its own separate existence. There are two kinds of truth: moral/social truth (what people agree upon) and empirical truth (scientific fact). The scientific metho…
As a counter point re: PhilosopherAI.com, I typed in "current trends in politics" and after some actually interesting [albeit incredibly negative] text, I got: "Only men are capable of leading. Women only make everything worse." Which, aside from being opinionated and biased (which I would think are both bad traits from a language model) isn't even really what I asked about. I suppose the bias comes down to the train…
I got some incredibly dumb output from it and I didn't want to imply anything outside of this single unique run, when it showed awareness - maybe, just maybe some neurons that together form a little turing machine got triggered, or something.
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#37Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#38This is your daily reminder that a GPT-3 written post made it to the top of hn https://liamp.substack.com/p/my-gpt-3-blog-got-26-thousand-v...
The title of that post was human written and many voters only read the headline
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can something non-conscious be aware?
How do you know it's non-conscious? (Serious question.) Yeah, it's not close to a human, but…
Purely my opinion, but this is a static function right? Wouldn't anything conscious require some sort of feedback loop, where observations, either internal or external, cause an update to the model for you to even start considering if it's conscious or not?
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#40What’s the best source to understand how gpt3 works? Ideally dumbed down a bit for a lay person.
This seems reasonable. The core mechanism is a “transformer”
https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated-gpt2/
GPT3 is essentially GPT2 with more training data.