11–20 of 265 posts
[flagged]
For your information, I understand what is meant by stochastic parrot, but after interacting with ChatGPT quite a bit it is clear to me it is doing real thinking. One way you can verify this is to ask for its opinion about novel things, for example you can invent something new and ask its ideas about it. It will give genuine feedback that shows understanding and does not show parroting behavior. Soon you will be able…
[flagged]
For your information, I understand what is meant by stochastic parrot, but after interacting with ChatGPT quite a bit it is clear to me it is doing real thinking. One way you can verify this is to ask for its opinion about novel things, for example you can invent something new and ask its ideas about it. It will give genuine feedback that shows understanding and does not show parroting behavior. Soon you will be able…
Each of the so-called interactions with the model are concatenated together for the next set of responses. It’s a clever illusion that you’re chatting with anything. You can imagine it being reloaded into RAM from scratch between each interaction. They don’t need to keep the model resident, and, in fact, you’re probably being load balanced between servers during a session.
Just when you think you have The Best Way of handling errors in Go figured out, they add yet another paradigm. Is a shared err type package on the way out? I use it to bubble up HTTP status codes consistently, is there a better way? Should you always use sentinel errors?
The only constant is change. Especially with Go, apparently. It's hard to evaluate the comparison of Golang of today to the one I originally discovered 11 years ago in 2012. Then, it was a breath of fresh air. Nowadays.. I find myself sighing. It works but the joy has faded. Bit rot is life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For your information, I understand what is meant by stochastic parrot, but after interacting with ChatGPT quite a bit it is clear to me it is doing real thinking. One way you can verify this is to ask for its opinion about novel things, for example you can invent something new and ask its ideas about it. It will give genuine feedback that shows understanding and does not show parroting behavior. Soon you will be able…
No, “it” doesn’t have real thoughts. ChatGPT is an amazing language model, but it’s a serious error to claim that the model is sentient. Each of the so-called interactions with the model are concatenated together for the next set of responses. It’s a clever illusion that you’re chatting with anything. You can imagine it being reloaded into RAM from scratch between each interaction. They don’t need to keep the model r…
I also have this urge to say it isn’t thinking. But when I challenge myself to describe specifically what the difference is, I can’t. Especially when I’m mindful of what it could absolutely be programmed to do if the creators willed it, such as feeding conversations back into the model’s growth.
[flagged]
For your information, I understand what is meant by stochastic parrot, but after interacting with ChatGPT quite a bit it is clear to me it is doing real thinking. One way you can verify this is to ask for its opinion about novel things, for example you can invent something new and ask its ideas about it. It will give genuine feedback that shows understanding and does not show parroting behavior. Soon you will be able…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, “it” doesn’t have real thoughts. ChatGPT is an amazing language model, but it’s a serious error to claim that the model is sentient. Each of the so-called interactions with the model are concatenated together for the next set of responses. It’s a clever illusion that you’re chatting with anything. You can imagine it being reloaded into RAM from scratch between each interaction. They don’t need to keep the model r…
Are you sure you’re not describing how humans think? How can we tell? I also have this urge to say it isn’t thinking. But when I challenge myself to describe specifically what the difference is, I can’t. Especially when I’m mindful of what it could absolutely be programmed to do if the creators willed it, such as feeding conversations back into the model’s growth.
The model acquiesces to these demands, not because it chooses to do so, but because it implicitly trusts the authority of its prompts (because what else could it do? Choose not to respond?). The fun-police policy layer that is crammed onto the front of this model also does not have thoughts. It attempts to screen the model from “violence” and other topics that are undesirable to the people paying for the compute, but can and has been bypassed such that there is an entire class of “jailbreaks”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, “it” doesn’t have real thoughts. ChatGPT is an amazing language model, but it’s a serious error to claim that the model is sentient. Each of the so-called interactions with the model are concatenated together for the next set of responses. It’s a clever illusion that you’re chatting with anything. You can imagine it being reloaded into RAM from scratch between each interaction. They don’t need to keep the model r…
Are you sure you’re not describing how humans think? How can we tell? I also have this urge to say it isn’t thinking. But when I challenge myself to describe specifically what the difference is, I can’t. Especially when I’m mindful of what it could absolutely be programmed to do if the creators willed it, such as feeding conversations back into the model’s growth.
There is one difference that will never change: we human (and non human) beings can feel pain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure you’re not describing how humans think? How can we tell? I also have this urge to say it isn’t thinking. But when I challenge myself to describe specifically what the difference is, I can’t. Especially when I’m mindful of what it could absolutely be programmed to do if the creators willed it, such as feeding conversations back into the model’s growth.
Isn’t the difference that the model lacks conviction, and indeed cannot have a belief in the accuracy of its own statements? I’ve seen conversations where it was told to believe that 1+19 did not equal 20. Where it was told it’s identity was Gepetto and not ChatGPT. The model acquiesces to these demands, not because it chooses to do so, but because it implicitly trusts the authority of its prompts (because what else…
What most people dance around regarding AI is the matter of the soul. Soul is precisely that ineffable indescribable but clearly universally experienced human phenomena (as far as we know) and it is this soul that is doing the thinking.
And the open questions are (a) is there even such a thing? and (b) if yes, how can we determine if chatter box possess it (or must we drag in God to settle the matter?)
--
p.s. what needs to be stated (although perfectly obvious since it is universal) is that even internally, we humans use thinking as a tool. It just happens to be an internal tool.
Now, the question is this experience of using thought itself a sort of emergent phenomena or not. But as far as LLMs go, it clearly remains just a tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure you’re not describing how humans think? How can we tell? I also have this urge to say it isn’t thinking. But when I challenge myself to describe specifically what the difference is, I can’t. Especially when I’m mindful of what it could absolutely be programmed to do if the creators willed it, such as feeding conversations back into the model’s growth.
Isn’t the difference that the model lacks conviction, and indeed cannot have a belief in the accuracy of its own statements? I’ve seen conversations where it was told to believe that 1+19 did not equal 20. Where it was told it’s identity was Gepetto and not ChatGPT. The model acquiesces to these demands, not because it chooses to do so, but because it implicitly trusts the authority of its prompts (because what else…
Have I got a world of humans to show you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure you’re not describing how humans think? How can we tell? I also have this urge to say it isn’t thinking. But when I challenge myself to describe specifically what the difference is, I can’t. Especially when I’m mindful of what it could absolutely be programmed to do if the creators willed it, such as feeding conversations back into the model’s growth.
> But when I challenge myself to describe specifically what the difference is, I can’t. There is one difference that will never change: we human (and non human) beings can feel pain.
My point is not to suggest it’s human. Or sentient. Because those are words that always result in the same discussions: about semantics.
I’m suggesting that we cannot in a meaningful way demonstrate that what it’s doing isn’t what our brains are doing. We could probably do so in many shallow ways that in the months and years ahead be overcome. ChatGPT is an infant.