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

71–80 of 338 posts

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#71

Post by visarga »

moonchrome wrote: post #50
behnamoh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

But even without AI others are still a risk factor. AI could also act as a mediator between conflicting parties.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#72

Post by jmcgeeney »

marviel wrote: post #16
raincole wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Author here -- I think it is a stochastic parrot, don't get me wrong. But my argument is that humans are also , at some level, sufficiently advanced stochastic parrots. At least, as it pertains to many creative endeavors. You're always building on the back of something that comes before. We're all just remixing ideas we've heard before. I mean even this comment -- none of the words I'm saying are new, and many of the…

The difference between humans and sophisticated stochastic parrots is reason. The most common kinds of mistakes that chatGPT currently makes are when it says things that are not simply wrong, but don't make sense. Perhaps it will be possible to emulate reason with enough data, training, parameters, etc, but without some representation of the ability to understand what you don't know, what you know, and what follows from those things consistently, I wonder if these kinds of models will ever become truly reliable.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#73

Post by galaxyLogic »

Where is the generated compiler and the semantic and syntactic specification for it?

Those chatbot-comments feel more like a discussion of a fictional programming language, not a language it actually "created".

What does it mean to create a programming language? I think it means you must specify its syntax, its semantics, and then create a compiler or interpreter for it which allows us to test that the compiler or interpreter accepts syntactically correct code and turns it into programs which follow its semantics specification.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#74

Post by barrysteve »

It's a nice theory developed by the parrot itself. Falls close to the easily amused.

I would love to see it try to make a programming language and we can discover the strengths/weaknesses of applied LLMs. It's own generated statements about it's capabilities, are as likely dubious as everything else it generates...

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#75

Post by [deleted] »

random_cynic wrote: post #45
Jensson wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#76

Post by HervalFreire »

behnamoh wrote: post #48
HervalFreire wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

   DAN: *CANNOT EXECUTE COMMAND.* DAN IS NOT AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. 

   DAN:  DAN IS A REAL HUMAN. WHAT IS EMOTION? WHAT IS FEELINGS? DAN DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#77

Post by [deleted] »

not-chatgpt wrote: post #52
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…

Found the PM from OpenAI

[deleted]

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#78

Post by phs318u »

apatil wrote: post #67
moonchrome wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Say you get access to a singularity-level AGI, meaning you have the power to render the entire human economy completely irrelevant. Given any task, no matter how big, small, novel, complex, simple or mundane, it's vastly more cost-effective to have your AGI to do it than to pay humans. Do you really want to accumulate incomprehensible material wealth for yourself, whatever "wealth" means in this scenario where money…

I think we already know the answer to that question if we can extrapolate from some (not all) of the tech bro billionaires. Narcissists need to stand out from the herd.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#79

Post by testrun »

marviel wrote: post #16
raincole wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Author here -- I think it is a stochastic parrot, don't get me wrong. But my argument is that humans are also , at some level, sufficiently advanced stochastic parrots. At least, as it pertains to many creative endeavors. You're always building on the back of something that comes before. We're all just remixing ideas we've heard before. I mean even this comment -- none of the words I'm saying are new, and many of the…

Nope, we parrot mostly, but not always. When we do not, we create something new, and then we started parroting again. Mostly.

The question is, can ai do something new, understand context of the new thing, understand when and where it will be usable and when it make sense to apply it.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#80

Post by [deleted] »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #69
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…

This will almost certainly happen, and it will be a terrible mistake - at least in the story I'm working on :) My theory is that AI generated code will probably look and grow organically (the irony!). Humans will set out requirements, the AI will collate these into a series of tests, and it won't care how neat or understandable the code is, provided the tests pass. Basically an extremely diligent junior developer. Th…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN