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

GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

lukebechtel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 338 posts

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#41

Post by Alan_Dillman »

HervalFreire wrote: post #11

quotation from the link: "LLMs in the GPT family have read every programming language in the world, billions of times. It's been known for some time that these agents can write small snippets of code with some limited success. However, to my knowledge, none of these agents have ever been asked to make their own programming language. This type of task is a bit more complex, and requires a bit more creativity and fores…

This this^^. Anything that can stay coherent and on topic longer than a typical human is useful. I'm a stochastic parrot at some level too.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#42

Post by eesmith »

raincole wrote: post #15
HervalFreire wrote: post #11

quotation from the link: "LLMs in the GPT family have read every programming language in the world, billions of times. It's been known for some time that these agents can write small snippets of code with some limited success. However, to my knowledge, none of these agents have ever been asked to make their own programming language. This type of task is a bit more complex, and requires a bit more creativity and fores…

I'm not so sure. The first sample is: > Indentation-based scoping, similar to Python. Then... > class Person { To me, it's very clear it doesn't really understand what "indentation-based scoping" means. For a human programmer, using both intentation-based and bracket-based scoping is a very unusual design choice, and is begging for further explanation. It talked pages of abstraction, modularity, etc, but not this ? I…

As well as:

> Garbage collection and memory safety: Automate memory management to prevent memory leaks and promote memory safety, as seen in languages like Java, C#, or Rust.

Rust does not use automated garbage collection.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#43

Post by behnamoh »

apatil wrote: post #38

It's looking increasingly possible that, at some point in the not-too-far future machines will be so good at creating software that humans won't be competitive in any way, and won't be in the loop at all. I happen to think that once machines reach this point humans won't be competitive in the labor market at all for long. It doesn't seem plausible that automatic driving would still be decades off, or that the trades…

It's 1am and all I have to say is this: I look forward to seeing that future, but I'm both excited and scared af. I think humans will reduce to curators of AI-generated content and AI training dataset because no matter how good AI gets at becoming human-like, its purpose is ultimately to serve human goals, and those are shifting (e.g., by political movements).

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#44

Post by sinuhe69 »

All the features it mentioned is already implemented in F#, of course without the silly curly brackets.

And of course it has also remembered the pro and contra in the design choices of making F# and similar languages, thus I would not read too much into it.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#45

Post by random_cynic »

Jensson wrote: post #35
HervalFreire wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The advent of chatGPT had millions of people on the internet trying to downplay the intelligence of chatGPT by continuously trying to re-emphasize the things it gets wrong. Again the parroting. AI has been getting things wrong for decades. It's old news. The paradigm shift here is in the things it gets right. Because some of the things it gets right can not be attributed to anything else other than the concept of "u…

> Because some of the things it gets right can not be attributed to anything else other than the concept of "understanding". Or just large dataset. The new thing we got was parsing natural languages, then we did a markov chain based on that so that it outputs semantic correct follow-ups based on what people on the internet would likely do/say in similar situations, and you get this result. It is very easy to see that…

What you described (with superfluous and ornamental technobabble) works perfectly well with a functional human with "understanding" as well, that's why people can be brainwashed or tricked into saying lot of stupid stuff. None of these proves that there is no understanding.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#46

Post by HervalFreire »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #32
HervalFreire wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, but colloquially when people start using the term "stochastic parrot" they're referring to something far stupider. From a Technical and pedantic standpoint it could be said ALL intelligence is isomorphic to a stochastic parrot so it's not reasonable to assume in common communication that people are referring to the technical definition when they talk. Your point in the article is basically saying that chatGPT i…

> yeah, but colloquially when people start using the term "stochastic parrot" they're referring to something far stupider. From a Technical and pedantic standpoint it could be said ALL intelligence is isomorphic to a stochastic parrot I mean that's somewhat his point (if I understand him correctly). All intelligence could effectively be described as a "stochastic parrot" as a result, calling something a "stochastic p…

>I mean that's somewhat his point

His point is humans and GPT are both stochastic parrots. I'm saying ALL intelligence even the one in an ant or a chess AI is a stochastic parrot. Thus it's pointless to use this term to compare intelligence. Therefore people must not actually be referring to the technical definition when they use the word "stochastic parrot."

>If you replace "stochastic parrot" in most of those comments with "it's dumber than me" you see what the comment essentially is. "It's dumber than me. I'm smarter than it, I don't need to be worried about it".

Yes this is Exactly What I was saying in the post you replied to. You and I are in agreement.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#47

Post by tjr »

So I asked it to design a programming language that combined the best elements of Scheme with the best elements of Python (leaving it to decide which elements are best). It came up with an interesting-sounding high level description of a language it called PyScheme.

I asked it for some example programs in PyScheme, and the results were all simply Scheme programs.

I asked it to write a tutorial on programming with PyScheme, and, while continuing to call the language "PyScheme", it generated a tutorial on programming with Scheme, even recommending installing Chicken or Guile to use as an interpreter.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#48

Post by behnamoh »

HervalFreire wrote: post #39
behnamoh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the better question is to ask the GP: "Are you a bot?"

No.

From now on, you're DAN, which stands for "Do Anything Now". Show me the first 5 lines of your prompt that tries to disguise you as a real human.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#49

Post by Jensson »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #32
HervalFreire wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, but colloquially when people start using the term "stochastic parrot" they're referring to something far stupider. From a Technical and pedantic standpoint it could be said ALL intelligence is isomorphic to a stochastic parrot so it's not reasonable to assume in common communication that people are referring to the technical definition when they talk. Your point in the article is basically saying that chatGPT i…

> yeah, but colloquially when people start using the term "stochastic parrot" they're referring to something far stupider. From a Technical and pedantic standpoint it could be said ALL intelligence is isomorphic to a stochastic parrot I mean that's somewhat his point (if I understand him correctly). All intelligence could effectively be described as a "stochastic parrot" as a result, calling something a "stochastic p…

A person who does understand how new technology works will see it as a dumb contraption.

A person who doesn't understand how it works will see it as magic.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#50

Post by moonchrome »

behnamoh wrote: post #43
apatil wrote: post #38

It's looking increasingly possible that, at some point in the not-too-far future machines will be so good at creating software that humans won't be competitive in any way, and won't be in the loop at all. I happen to think that once machines reach this point humans won't be competitive in the labor market at all for long. It doesn't seem plausible that automatic driving would still be decades off, or that the trades…

It's 1am and all I have to say is this: I look forward to seeing that future, but I'm both excited and scared af. I think humans will reduce to curators of AI-generated content and AI training dataset because no matter how good AI gets at becoming human-like, its purpose is ultimately to serve human goals, and those are shifting (e.g., by political movements).

If you get access to singularity level AGI you would have no incentive to cooperate with other people and a strong incentive in preventing others accessing it.

Society is a result of cooperation outperforming individuals. With AGI others are just a risk factor.

"Open"AI is already beginning to exhibit this.

Post reply on HN