Live data from Hacker News

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

jonstokes.com

121–130 of 144 posts

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

#121
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect that this will be tried, and I worry about some negative consequences if it works well. It could be a way of generating very effective propaganda, that defeats the efforts of the opposing LLM to call bullshit. On the other hand, diffusion models seem to have replaced GANs for image synthesis, so perhaps there's something I'm missing, or perhaps there's a way to combine both techniques.

I am not sure calling bullshit on images works the same way, given we generally want to invite creativity to image generation. Although an adversarial extra-finger detector seems in order! Extra fingers are not creativity. They are taboo!! But for text, there is a lot of structure around bullshitting, and fortunately, the internet is full of examples of people calling bullshit. As long as the bullshit adversary has t…

The first really good image generators for faces (see for example https://this-person-does-not-exist.com ) used GANs, which were trained by having one model generate faces and another model saying bullshit, that isn't a face.

I'm not worried about using approaches like this to converge on truth (model A generates an answer to a question, model B attempts to refute model A). Perhaps we could train model A to generate lies that model B can't detect.

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask it to “prove how a martingale converges to the zariski measure on a commutative scheme.” Totally absurd question, totally absurd answer.

I asked ChatGPT Legacy: "Hello! Can you prove how a martingale converges to the zariski measure on a commutative scheme?" It replied: "Hello! The notion of a martingale converging to the Zariski measure on a commutative scheme is a highly advanced and abstract mathematical concept. It is not possible to provide a simple proof for this statement, as it requires a deep understanding of several advanced mathematical con…

Notice that martingales do not converge AND the zariski measure is not a thing at all.

Sorry saw your reply too late.

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

#123
post #119
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gibberish is just a shortcut for words without meaning.

I don’t have some arbitrary rules for what passes the Turing test, but it’s about the worst case not the best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intell...

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

#125
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.

>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.

I wasted quite a bit of time trying. Its utility falls off a cliff if it can’t copy something from its existing corpus.

That said, it’s got a lot of code to copy from. So I may try again if when I suspect I am reinventing the wheel.

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

#126
post #123
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gibberish is just a shortcut for words without meaning. I don’t have some arbitrary rules for what passes the Turing test, but it’s about the worst case not the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intell...

[edit: You edited your comment but it used to say it fails "the test as described" and that the competitions are invalid since they do not follow the rules. I presume you looked up the actual test afterwards and realized how wild your "completely fails" comments were - and did a 360 and rewrote the comment. Keeping my original response below.]

> the test as described

I hope you realize that the original Turing test is where you have a man and a woman trying to convince an interrogator that they are of the opposite sex. The test is to replace one with a machine and see if the interrogator would decide the wrong sex as often as when there's an actual human playing.

So if we're talking about the actual test, as described, the most basic bots have passed it a long time ago. If we're talking about the standard interpretation (convince the interrogator that the bot is human) it's a derived version that has no intrinsic rules and was not described by Turing.

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

#127

I feel like as an intro aimed at "normies" it still manages to communicate in a more abstract and overthinky way than necessary. People often find it difficult to intuit examples from abstract descriptions. BUT, people are great at intuiting abstractions from concrete examples. You rarely need to explicitly mention abstractions, in informal talk. People's minds are always abstracting. > If I’m relating the collection…

Obligatory xkcd - https://xkcd.com/2501

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

#128
post #126
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gibberish is just a shortcut for words without meaning. I don’t have some arbitrary rules for what passes the Turing test, but it’s about the worst case not the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intell...

[edit: You edited your comment but it used to say it fails "the test as described" and that the competitions are invalid since they do not follow the rules. I presume you looked up the actual test afterwards and realized how wild your "completely fails" comments were - and did a 360 and rewrote the comment. Keeping my original response below.] > the test as described I hope you realize that the original Turing test i…

I was just going into excessive detail. My point was limitations stop following the spirit of the original.

I don’t specifically object to changing the judge from interrogation to observation of a conversation. But, it should be clear his version doesn’t have all the loopholes the modern interpretation does.

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

#129
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if someone could make some standardized way to describe/write mathematical proofs - in a very formal language and then train a model that will try to find more proofs for open questions.

What if it solves the P versus NP problem?

We go home to rest.... no more working for us....

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

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked ChatGPT Legacy: "Hello! Can you prove how a martingale converges to the zariski measure on a commutative scheme?" It replied: "Hello! The notion of a martingale converging to the Zariski measure on a commutative scheme is a highly advanced and abstract mathematical concept. It is not possible to provide a simple proof for this statement, as it requires a deep understanding of several advanced mathematical con…

Notice that martingales do not converge AND the zariski measure is not a thing at all. Sorry saw your reply too late.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN