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

ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

jonstokes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

#111

Post by mirekrusin »

phire wrote: post #68
spion wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just connect something. For example, at a certain size, GPT models start to "learn" how to do basic arithmetic (addition), even for numbers with multiple digits they've never encountered before. It might look like a small thing, what with computers being quite able to do arithmetic at the base level. But this is a language model, so its a bit different. It learns how to add numbers without "carrying the 1" first,…

Worth pointing out that it's not 100% accurate at arithmetic, that becomes quite clear when you ask it to calculate large numbers. It's result is usually close, but not perfect. So it hasn't learned the exact rules for arithmetic, it's learned rules for approximating arithmetic to a decent level of accuracy. Similar to how humans can know the approximate result of an equation before doing the actual math (though GPT…

They need to add support for co-brains - functions that are available for weightware brain to use. Ie if could and knew how to use wolfram alpha - it’d boost performance dramatically.

Re: ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

#112

Post by Kiro »

Retric wrote: post #105
qingdao99 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were given the task "mimic the sound of Japanese as best you can", at first, you would just learn the basic phonology and just try and mimic the general sounds of the language. You would get good at that, and eventually you would be perfectly mimicking the pronunciation of Japanese phonemes. At some point, it would become worth your time to actually learn how different sounds are put together, e.g. Japanese ca…

Where that argument falls apart is when you’re talking about something that’s still bad a mimicry. ChatGPT still completely fails the touring test it’s not even vaguely close to that threshold. For now it’s slightly better than fake crowd noise you’re hearing in movies, but still frequently just gibberish.

ChatGPT passes the Turing test and is not even the first bot to have done so. No idea why you're so keen on downplaying it but soon there won't be anyone left that you will be able to convince that this is no big deal. You're fighting an uphill battle.

Re: ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

#113

Post by jefc1111 »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #107
iamflimflam1 wrote: post #62

I’m not quite sure this article is really going to help “normies”. It seems to fall into the classic trap of “I’m going to explain something in simple terms that you will understand. But, I still want you to think I’m really clever so I’m going to make sure you still don’t really understand”

Had an attempt at writing for “normies” - https://atomic14.com/2023/03/08/why-does-chatgpt-make-mistak...

Thanks, this was an informative and enjoyable read!

Re: ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

#114

Post by Bost »

imhoguy wrote: post #6

The biggest drawback of LLM is that it never answers with "I don't know" (unless it is some quote) and it just brings bullshit hallucinations which human has to reject as wrong. Thus it is mostly useless for anything serious. Personally I use it to beautify some text, but still have to do a bit of correction to fix b/s or missed context.

Sorry but that's not true. I play with ChatGPT only for about a week or two and I have seen such a response a couple of times. However it's not easy to get such an answer. I'm not denying that.

(Unfortunately I can't provide you an example. The ChatGPT history is not available right now. Wed Mar 8 02:02:14 PM CET 2023)

Re: ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

#115

Post by Retric »

Kiro wrote: post #112
Retric wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where that argument falls apart is when you’re talking about something that’s still bad a mimicry. ChatGPT still completely fails the touring test it’s not even vaguely close to that threshold. For now it’s slightly better than fake crowd noise you’re hearing in movies, but still frequently just gibberish.

ChatGPT passes the Turing test and is not even the first bot to have done so. No idea why you're so keen on downplaying it but soon there won't be anyone left that you will be able to convince that this is no big deal. You're fighting an uphill battle.

That’s completely false.

The Touring test allows unlimited topics, time, etc. There are competitions that use rules heavily favor bots where bots have “won” in the past but they aren’t actually preforming the test.

ChatGPT seems amazing at first, but that’s because its flaws are so novel to them. People just aren’t used to looking for them so they can overlook how quickly it completely forgets about previous parts of a conversation etc.

Re: ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

#116

Post by andrepd »

dymax78 wrote: post #58
imhoguy wrote: post #6

The biggest drawback of LLM is that it never answers with "I don't know" (unless it is some quote) and it just brings bullshit hallucinations which human has to reject as wrong. Thus it is mostly useless for anything serious. Personally I use it to beautify some text, but still have to do a bit of correction to fix b/s or missed context.

I haven't experienced chatgpt explicitly tell me "I don't know", but it has provided me with factually incorrect answers pertaining to the functionality of an appliance and associated software. Further probing and I was advised to contact IBM support.... lol. My usage has been confined to specific technical inquiries and chatgpts benefit has been colossal in saving me the time of sifting through decade(s) of document…

Honestly, how can that be? If it's bullshitting me half of the time... If it's something I already know I can see it's bullshitting, if it's something I don't know (i.e. I'm using it for a practical purpose) then how can I tell!

Re: ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

#119

Post by Kiro »

Retric wrote: post #115
Kiro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT passes the Turing test and is not even the first bot to have done so. No idea why you're so keen on downplaying it but soon there won't be anyone left that you will be able to convince that this is no big deal. You're fighting an uphill battle.

That’s completely false. The Touring test allows unlimited topics, time, etc. There are competitions that use rules heavily favor bots where bots have “won” in the past but they aren’t actually preforming the test. ChatGPT seems amazing at first, but that’s because its flaws are so novel to them. People just aren’t used to looking for them so they can overlook how quickly it completely forgets about previous parts of…

And when it passes your current interpretation of the Turing test you will find another excuse why it still "completely fails" and is "not even vaguely close". That's called moving the goalposts.

Passing the Turing test does not imply general intelligence but saying that what it outputs is "just gibberish" is obviously just another hyperbole from you.

Re: ChatGPT Explained: A normie's guide to how it works

#120

Post by SamPatt »

Retric wrote: post #105
qingdao99 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were given the task "mimic the sound of Japanese as best you can", at first, you would just learn the basic phonology and just try and mimic the general sounds of the language. You would get good at that, and eventually you would be perfectly mimicking the pronunciation of Japanese phonemes. At some point, it would become worth your time to actually learn how different sounds are put together, e.g. Japanese ca…

Where that argument falls apart is when you’re talking about something that’s still bad a mimicry. ChatGPT still completely fails the touring test it’s not even vaguely close to that threshold. For now it’s slightly better than fake crowd noise you’re hearing in movies, but still frequently just gibberish.

>For now it’s slightly better than fake crowd noise you’re hearing in movies, but still frequently just gibberish.

You've clearly never used ChatGPT to help you build or troubleshoot anything before.

Try it before you knock it.

Post reply on HN