101–110 of 250 posts
Ask #ChatGPT to list all ways to do X If it misses a way you know then ask if it knows about it If it confirms, ask it why it didn't include it In my case, it crashed (on two such attempts with different questions, happy to share) It seems to recall answers it has seen but not able to expand on those answers with knowledge it already has That's because it does not have knowledge. It has a bunch of correlations, encod…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT's superpower is hijacking the human desire for meaning into causing people to believe it is much better than it really is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach has dialogues between Achilles and the Tortoise where they work out the limitations of various fantastic A.I. systems based on mathematical logic. Roughly, neural networks don't repeal the results of Gödel, Turing and Tarski. The shor…
I had a weird effect with it: I played around with it for about an hour and was pretty impressed - I can't really wrap my head around how it can do some of the things it does. Then I started to see the patterns, and got repeatedly disappointed by having to adjust and refine my prompts. Then I got downright nonsense back from it and gave up. Either I made it to some kind of uncanny valley, and it would get better if I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT's superpower is hijacking the human desire for meaning into causing people to believe it is much better than it really is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach has dialogues between Achilles and the Tortoise where they work out the limitations of various fantastic A.I. systems based on mathematical logic. Roughly, neural networks don't repeal the results of Gödel, Turing and Tarski. The shor…
That wasn't Hofstadter's point. Hofstadter didn't try to "disprove" the possibility of having AI -- he only set out to show that certain approaches couldn't work. GPT's approach isn't one of those he argued against. You seem to be referring instead to Penrose and Lucas, but their arguments have convinced virtually no one.
It might be able to write a TV Show like Sliders but it won't be able to do real physics, for instance.
I see posts like this and don't understand how they are made. I asked chatGPT this morning if it "remembered" something I asked in the previous prompt, and it said something to the tune of "I am simply a NLP machine learning model, I provide a decent output for good inputs, I don't have a sense of context, memory, or time." That's why I really don't understand these contextualized multi step conversations. Especially…
Ask #ChatGPT to list all ways to do X If it misses a way you know then ask if it knows about it If it confirms, ask it why it didn't include it In my case, it crashed (on two such attempts with different questions, happy to share) It seems to recall answers it has seen but not able to expand on those answers with knowledge it already has That's because it does not have knowledge. It has a bunch of correlations, encod…
What do you mean by "it crashed". No output?
EDIT:
To clarify, based on the above sequence of events and timings, I figured the inference instance crashed and the API layer returned and error then cached it.
Earlier i was saying it isn't scary but maybe it is. It is impressive how ChatGPT keeps track of state and the flow of the conversation. How does it do it? Is it some kind of memory or some other model? ( I asked it, it keeps lying to me that it does not have memory)
As a committed conlanger (but not a good one: I didn't land the Dothraki contract), I read this article with some trepidation. Is my weird little hobby soon to fall victim to the oncoming AI tsunami? After the read, I find myself pleasantly surprised. My initial suspicion that the language would turn out to be Just Another Relex (make a new language by replacing English words with invented words, keeping the grammar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a weird effect with it: I played around with it for about an hour and was pretty impressed - I can't really wrap my head around how it can do some of the things it does. Then I started to see the patterns, and got repeatedly disappointed by having to adjust and refine my prompts. Then I got downright nonsense back from it and gave up. Either I made it to some kind of uncanny valley, and it would get better if I…
I feel like it’s state can be corrupted and it ends up in some weird rut. Often by telling it to try again I can unwedge it but sometimes I have to reset the entire state and start the convo over again. Each time is slightly different. These seem like bugs that optimization heuristics can overcome (like maybe replaying the same convo repeatedly and choosing the highest information next prompt to present? Who knows. I…
I find it even hard to reason about models I have full access to, downright impossible if it's some blackbox on someone else's severs.
Maybe I'm outdated, I suppose time will tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> mainly that such a fundamentally simple technique is paying off with such crazy dividends I will concede that I am amazed by this. Even more generally, I'm even more amazed by Markov chains: an even simpler technique that can generate crazy dividends as well.
[edit: Was snark. Sorry. I also may have misunderstood the parent comment.]
