271–280 of 307 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No in Tesla's case it is because a person still has to be on the wheel to correct any potential errors.
and conveniently ignoring that Cruise and Waymo have been running around for months in San Francisco with fingers crossed no major incident
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, that pattern of hype’s already been doing the rounds since GPT-3 first came out — people imagining GPT-4 and GPT-5 for short sci-fi stories about the late 2020s and early 2030s, asking a question that dates at least as far back as a few centuries BC with Jewish folklore about humans creating golems: can the work of our human hands and minds ever itself be a person? I’ve been playing with it. It’s very impressive,…
Its writing style is also trite, dry, verbose and tedious not to mention, the penchant for run-on sentences and blocks/walls of text. I know that it's been tailored to output like this by its own creators to suit this medium of communication with the public, and it can likely to be tweaked to be less uptight and more laid-back in its verbal communications style, if necessary but I am not quite sold exactly on its pot…
"Wow, it's almost like this text was written by a robot! Who knew it could be so advanced?" "I guess we'll just have to wait and see if it can take over the world any time soon!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key thing is GPT3's apparent certainty when it says utter rubbish (like how to calculate the fourth side of a triangle). You have to be skilled in the field to catch those perhaps subtle issues - once they start adding a certainty level it'll be more worrying re: losing jobs to AI
It might not be able to replace artists or scientists but it sounds like it can replace politicians!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, again we just discovered it only does well in constrained environments with well defined rules and a lot of data. Either that or something subjective that it can afford a lot of inaccuracy without looking totally stupid. It literally can't generalise to some basic logic problems just like AlphaZero is not going to be cooking your meals anytime soon. If to you that's ok, fantastic. But to compare what we got so fa…
So intelligence is a robot that can cook? Not so much an engineer or poet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s also impossible to imagine correctly. Back in 2009, I was completely convinced that we’d be able to go into a car dealership and buy a brand new vehicle which had no steering wheel because the self-driving AI was just that good, within 10 years. Seemed reasonable at the time on the basis of the DARPA Grand Challenge results, but even 13 years later, it didn’t happen.
Just because your prediction was wrong doesn’t mean that we aren’t leaps and bounds ahead of where we were. Seems like that is the crux of people’s argument. Because it’s not perfect yet it’s not impressive.
And GPT-3 et al has a lot of knowledge, even if it messes up certain expert level details. Rather than comparing against domain experts, my anchor point here is the sort of mistakes that novelists, script writers, and journalists make when writing about any given topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or let us provide unit tests for generated code and automatically tell the AI to fix the code until the code passes the tests we provided.
Or tell the AI to write the unit tests itself, and let it run those to check its work. After all, that's how humans write code. We aren't so great at writing bug-free code on our first try without testing it either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No in Tesla's case it is because a person still has to be on the wheel to correct any potential errors.
and conveniently ignoring that Cruise and Waymo have been running around for months in San Francisco with fingers crossed no major incident
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key thing is GPT3's apparent certainty when it says utter rubbish (like how to calculate the fourth side of a triangle). You have to be skilled in the field to catch those perhaps subtle issues - once they start adding a certainty level it'll be more worrying re: losing jobs to AI
It might not be able to replace artists or scientists but it sounds like it can replace politicians!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking it to convert 32 to binary was a bit of an eye opener. It gave me multiple completely incorrect ways of doing so (resulting in 0100 or something each time) despite me informing it it was wrong. It'd say things like 'the 24th place, then the 23rd place are 0's which just made no sense in terms of the query (I suppose technically correct if you really want to pad left) - but I had to think about it because it wa…
Most LLMs are crippled at tasks regarding character level manipulation because of how the inputs are tokenized (words and numbers are split into common substrings rather than the original characters, 101 -> “10” + “1” vs “1” + “0” + “1”). If you tried this binary conversion task with a model that takes in raw bytes (for instance, ByT5) it would perform almost perfectly. In GPT’s case, there’s a trade off between havi…
The second part is what it lacks completely, which is reasoning behind each piece of information it bases its answers on, there is no internal consistency, it's all valid and all equivalent in a way.
The way I see it, I build sentences by copying what others wrote, emulate construction and tone but with the intention to pass information, that information has been reasoned on and enters my "trusted" filter (understanding), then I just babble it out (what chatgpt does).
It doesn't seem far fetched to me that it might be enough to build rules about consistency of entries and levels of trust from sources of the model to ensure it generate good output. Or, as it usually is, could be the insurmountable hump to AGI that takes the next decade to solve. Either way I feel like chatgpt completely lacks this feature at this moment which makes me not worried at all about it taking my job, at most i'm hopeful that it will allow me to bootstrap stuff faster.