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

111–120 of 338 posts

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#111

Post by moonchrome »

1attice wrote: post #91
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.

This puts in mind the earlier post on HN about modelling civ as either a one-shot or iterated prisoner's dilemma. You make the case that, for sufficiently high N, possessing GPT-N is a one-shot prisoner's dilemma. The only winning strategy is 'defect' --- which in this context, means chokepoint control.

Thanks for phrasing it better, yes my point is there is no social iteration past singularity level AGI.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#112

Post by HervalFreire »

Jensson wrote: post #86
HervalFreire wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Edit: Also generating next state based on previous state is literally what the model does and is the definition of a Markov chain, Markov chains is a statistical concept and not just a word chain. There's research (as in actual scientific papers) that shows that in LLMs, while the markov chain is the low level representation of what's going on, at a higher macro level there are other structures at play here. Emergen…

> at a higher macro level there are other structures at play here. Emergent structures. Yes, this is a neural net model, that is what such models do and have done for decades already. I'm not sure why this is relevant. Do you argue that stable diffusion is intelligent since it has emergent structures? Or an image recognition system is intelligent since it has emergent structures? Those are the same things. > Even in…

>Yes, this is a neural net model, that is what such models do and have done for decades already. I'm not sure why this is relevant. Do you argue that stable diffusion is intelligent since it has emergent structures? Or an image recognition system is intelligent since it has emergent structures? Those are the same things.

No I am saying there are models for intelligence within the neural net that is explicitly different from a stochastic parrot for english vocabulary. For example in one instance they identified a structure in an LLM that logically models the rules and strategy for an actual board game.

Obviously I'm not referring to papers on plain old "neural networks" that shit is old news. I'm referring to new research on LLMs. Again I can provide you with papers provided you want evidence that will flip your stubborn viewpoint on this. It just depends on if your bias is flexible enough to accept such a sudden deconstruction of your own stance.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#113

Post by cryptozeus »

"But let’s talk about today’s “frontier” of jobs that haven’t been “automated away”. There’s one category that in many ways seems surprising to still be “with us”: jobs that involve lots of mechanical manipulation, like construction, fulfillment, food preparation, etc. But there’s a missing piece of technology here: there isn’t yet good general-purpose robotics (as there is general-purpose computing), and we humans still have the edge in dexterity, mechanical adaptability, etc. But I’m quite sure that in time—and perhaps quite suddenly—the necessary technology will be developed (and, yes, I have ideas about how to do it). And this will mean that most of today’s “mechanical manipulation” jobs will be “automated away”—and won’t need people to do them."

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#114

Post by awill88 »

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 all seems very personal to an outside observer and I do hope you’re feeling okay about humanity in general. I imagine like most models, GPT could (somehow) structurally become too burdensome, because of some future breakthrough. That stuff happens all the time. Also, I could be wrong. Doesn’t seem responsible to attempt to predict the future this way..

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#115

Post by laserbeam »

random_cynic wrote: post #92
aledalgrande wrote: post #19

My experience with it programming has been atrocius. It keeps making the same mistakes, writing NPEs everywhere and still doing it after I tell it many times how it was wrong (short memory?). Copilot is backed by it too now and I had a better autocomplete of constants with Sorbet than Copilot. Again, in my experience it's not usable if not for the super mainstream and simplest tasks. The biggest issue is that it writ…

Maybe stop treating it like an intern and learn some prompt engineering (there are good tools out there).

To be fair, sometimes prompt engineering works with interns as well. But in that context we call it "social skills".

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#116

Post by wruza »

I still don’t get why service, actor and rpc must be language keywords, when they aren’t semantically bound to a remote provider’s signatures. Why there’s actor needed at all? Rpc in place of async? If you have an rpc protocol implemented under `rpc`, why not just make an interface named PersonService and specialize a connection with it? It doesn’t actually make any sense.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#117

Post by marviel »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #88
marviel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ideas I'm expressing have merit -- but are they wholly original? I think the difference is that your intention is to write sentences which you think and believe are correct and which can help other people understand the subject. Chatbot has no intentions of its own, it only imitates texts it has read from the internet. As far as it is concerned they might be totally wrong. You on the other hand have the ability…

I'm not sure I can support the idea that the agent doesn't have the ability to reason -- try to give it any complex (text-based) puzzle you can think of and it'll do just about as well as an average person, oftentimes much better.

And I think you may be wrong to say the chatbot doesn't have intentions -- it's intentions based on its training are to accurately predict the next character. It doesn't care in the same way we do, sure -- but you could make a case (and it will be made in courts in the next few years, I don't doubt) that these agents do have desires that are analogous to our own, by the nature of their training process.

I don't know where that leaves us to be honest, but it's an interesting topic to discuss.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#118

Post by riffraff »

gonzo41 wrote: post #65
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 don't care if ChatGPT takes my job. Can it also take over my mortgage payments.....that's my bigger concern. We're busy destroying the future of work (I'm not complaining about that), but we're REALLY slow on the thinking about what happens when everyone has free time all the time.

So you think we have free time all the time because we have automated 90% of agriculture?

People will just find something else to do that automation is not very good at.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#119

Post by grogenaut »

moonchrome wrote: post #104
grogenaut wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you noticed how fast everyone else was able to copy open ai. And that's just what we saw or someone leaked. History is full of parallel inventions... how long after the US had nukes did russia?

Sounds like more of an argument for preemptively wiping out the competition. Comparing it to nukes doesn't hold since social norms/ethics/etc. become irrelevant if core tenant of society is broken. One thing that could happen is AI defense outperforms offense long enough to develop multiple instances - have no idea what would happen at that point.

I wasn't talking about nukes in using them, I'm talking about nukes in that once it was known to be possible/useful everyone with the means did it.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#120

Post by mcluck »

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.

There was absolutely zero technobabble in that persons comment. Perhaps you need to ask yourself how well you understand the space
Post reply on HN