Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CheatGPT

blog.humphd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#341

Post by dinkumthinkum »

paxys wrote: post #8

> Apparently, it's not even something students feel they need to hide. Which is good! If a bit of work is trivially accomplished by a machine, we should take it for granted and move on to the next layer of complexity. I have always maintained that teachers complaining about students cheating at homework assignments with AI need to instead work on providing better homework.

How do you move on to other layers of complexity if you don’t know anything. History books have trivially had answers to questions about history for centuries, does that mean we should take it for “granted” and no one needs yo actually know anything about history?

Where does this idea come from that you can be a Terence Tap of mathematics without even knowing basic algebra?

Re: CheatGPT

#342

Post by iameli »

JohnFen wrote: post #331
iameli wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't claim to understand everything my brain is doing, but accepting input and filtering it through a bunch of neuron chains to result in some kind of output sounds like "statistical analysis" to me. You seem convinced that ChatGPT will never have "actual intelligence" — care to make a prediction about something that LLMs will never accomplish? We know they can write code, write essays, generate artwork, and play…

An LLM will never be able to produce something that cannot be statistically derived from its training data. So... creating a new language, maybe?

ChatGPT's attempt: https://gist.github.com/iameli/d9a5b715ec9baa5b11063888e054d...

Are those two responses enough to say it's invented a language? Probably not. But it's already farther along than I would have gotten if you asked me to do such a thing.

If I kept prompting it for hours, I bet it would start to contradict itself and lose track of the rules it had already established, but so would I. If I were actually inventing a language, I'd take months and keep extensive cross-referenced documentation on grammar and syntax and vocabulary. We don't _let_ ChatGPT do that, it has no mechanism for persisting its ideas like that. But like... neither would I if you took away my notebook and the parts of my brain that persist long-term memory.

I guess my interpretation here - I see differences in _capabilities_, but not differences in actual _intelligence_.

Re: CheatGPT

#343

Post by sacrosancty »

JohnFen wrote: post #299
throw310822 wrote: post #209

I don't understand how most of the comments here seem to be along the lines of "these interview questions are useless now" or "we need to rethink education, it hasn't kept up". These all seem absurdly myopic to me. What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI. This is not going to make some interview questions obsolete, or give students more tools to cheat with their homework. It…

> What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI. None of this is AGI. This is Eliza on steroids.

[dead]

Re: CheatGPT

#344

Post by Aperocky »

throw310822 wrote: post #209

I don't understand how most of the comments here seem to be along the lines of "these interview questions are useless now" or "we need to rethink education, it hasn't kept up". These all seem absurdly myopic to me. What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI. This is not going to make some interview questions obsolete, or give students more tools to cheat with their homework. It…

This take is widely prevalent in every single ChatGPT discussion.

I'll quote myself for discussion for a previous article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746348

> I've find two groups of people on this subject, first one has taken a graduate level stat course and/or ML course, and may have work experience in machine learning/data science. The latter camp is more numerous and did not do those things.

> The latter group are far more hyped about ChatGPT et al, despite explanation by the first group.

> Don't get me wrong, ChatGPT is very exciting, just not in the way it is frequently portrait to be, in particular, development on this model will not lead to General Intelligence, which is not a data training/stat problem altogether. With how the ML field is shaping up to be today, it doesn't even look to be a Machine Learning problem.

And let me just add a ridiculous comparison, since you are assuming that it is a path towards AGI:

> iPhone 4 isn't fusion energy. It's incredibly useful and a tectonic shift in the cellphone industry, but it's not producing energy. The analogy might sound completely insane, but that's how different machine learning of today and general intelligence is.

While AI of today feels like a blackbox, at every stage of its training we know to a degree what it is doing, and once trained, it is as deterministic as a few billion interconnected if else connected to a random seed generator. It could do a lot of things, acquiring a mind of its own isn't one of it.

I wouldn't be worried just yet, because AGI is something that research have barely had an idea on how it's going to look outside of our brain, or even inside. I'm not saying that it will never come, just that I highly doubt it will be invented in my lifetime. In the meanwhile, I have something that all of bots today won't have, initiative.

Re: CheatGPT

#345

Post by neongreen »

JohnFen wrote: post #331
iameli wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't claim to understand everything my brain is doing, but accepting input and filtering it through a bunch of neuron chains to result in some kind of output sounds like "statistical analysis" to me. You seem convinced that ChatGPT will never have "actual intelligence" — care to make a prediction about something that LLMs will never accomplish? We know they can write code, write essays, generate artwork, and play…

An LLM will never be able to produce something that cannot be statistically derived from its training data. So... creating a new language, maybe?

https://maximumeffort.substack.com/p/i-taught-chatgpt-to-inv...

My bet would be that in ten years GPT would get pretty good at it, but eh, I dunno.

Re: CheatGPT

#346

Post by lmm »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #229
brookst wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it just moves the definition of “learning” to a higher level of abstraction: so you know what AI tools to use, how to prompt them, and how to understand their output? I’m reminded of the time when graphing calculators were going to destroy math programs because nobody would “really know” how to do the work. And yet here we are, and math is fine, and calculators are just another tool.

I hear this argument a lot and I think that it's fallacious. Let's go ahead and extend it to another AI tool - in this case let's talk about stable diffusion. Let's say you teach a class on fine Art and painting, if you allow your students to use stable diffusion for all their drawings, would you make the case that they have learned how to paint? Likewise you can't really make the case that somebody understands how t…

You could say the same about a photography class, that all you're teaching your students to do is push buttons rather than paint a scene.

Re: CheatGPT

#347

Post by dinkumthinkum »

Spivak wrote: post #139
humanizersequel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing how to produce an essay is exactly the same as "analytical thinking, research, and argument skills" with the added challenge of making it legible to a reader — which is what makes those skills useful.

I suppose, but having written plenty of essays as an adult I can say with complete certainty that nothing I learned from my 5 paragraph days was of any use. No one, not you, not your teacher, not any real life audience for any topic you would be presenting on or publishing for, wants to read anything remotely close to what you're forced to write in school.

Where did you learn to compose your thoughts and write them long form? If you were an autodidact then do you think that is a representative example?

Re: CheatGPT

#348

Post by dpflan »

JohnFen wrote: post #317
adastra22 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually used any of these products? GPT et al are perfectly capable of taking knowledge from any one domain and applying it towards the solution of any other problem domain, through various kinds of data abstraction, reasoning by analogy, and other techniques similar to what humans do. It makes plenty of goofups along the way, just like humans do. But if your requirement is that it performs absolutely perfe…

> through various kinds of data abstraction, reasoning by analogy, and other techniques similar to what humans do. No, that's exactly not how LLMs work. They are extremely good at predicting what sentences resemble the sentences in their training data and creating those. That's all. People are getting tripped up because they are seeing legitimate intelligence in the output from these systems -- but that intelligence…

“People are getting tripped up because they are seeing legitimate intelligence in the output from these systems -- but that intelligence was in the people who wrote the texts that it was trained with, not in the LLM.”

This is the real magic. Let’s train ChatGPT on absolute garbage information and compare the intelligence of the two.

Re: CheatGPT

#349

Post by lurquer »

kurisufag wrote: post #222
throw310822 wrote: post #209

I don't understand how most of the comments here seem to be along the lines of "these interview questions are useless now" or "we need to rethink education, it hasn't kept up". These all seem absurdly myopic to me. What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI. This is not going to make some interview questions obsolete, or give students more tools to cheat with their homework. It…

>What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI absolutely not. language-model text generation is actually about as non-general as it gets -- they are fundamentally incapable of understanding anything at all, ever. they can't do math, work through basic logic problems, or produce any output that isn't just an assumed logical continuation of the input.

I used to think so.

But then I reconsidered.

Those poo-pooing LLMs say it is merely ‘a fancier version of autocompletion.’ Or, they make comments (correctly) that ‘it isn’t reasoning… it’s just guessing which word ought come next.’

Such a point-of-view is similar to thinking, in regard to a circle saw, “it doesn’t ‘want’ to cut off your hand! It’s just a circle of spinning serrated steel!”

The human race is about to get its hand cut off.

We are in a bad place.

So much time spent being wasted debating how to make LLMs ‘safe’ by ensuring they don’t inadvertently say something racist! People are utterly missing the point as to the true danger.

Re: CheatGPT

#350

Post by dinkumthinkum »

SkyBelow wrote: post #44
paxys wrote: post #8

> Apparently, it's not even something students feel they need to hide. Which is good! If a bit of work is trivially accomplished by a machine, we should take it for granted and move on to the next layer of complexity. I have always maintained that teachers complaining about students cheating at homework assignments with AI need to instead work on providing better homework.

Should we? Basic arithmetic has long since been solved, but I've met plenty of people who struggle at higher level math because they haven't mastered enough basic arithmetic. Solving complex problems will often involve many much simpler problems that must be solved as well. The time to offload this to another system to solve it for you is immensely more expensive than being able to solve it mentally, meaning that to…

No, we are supposed to believe you are not supposed to learn any of that because some technology exists and you will be better off with “higher level” tasks … that’s what they tell me, anyway.
Post reply on HN