GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language • Hacker News Board

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#131

Post by gonzo41 » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:55 AM UTC

riffraff wrote: post #118

gonzo41 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No It was a passing comment. I really think that LLM's will make certain aspects of work very nice, like a really good version of intellisense that writes you're whole api for you.

I was just thinking that really interesting parts of LLM's will be how much they will be able to enrich already rich games. Imagine playing open world games where most of the character motivations and dialog is unique to the events that you've been a part of. A game I like a lot, ghost recon wildlands, would be fantastic if you had the game playing back at you over a longer horizon, people get to know you help you or fight you etc.

As for my day job. It's not going away because of LLM's. They can't fix office politics yet.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#132

Post by aledalgrande » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:56 AM UTC

mkaic wrote: post #60

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…

> Copilot is backed by it too now Do you have a source for this? I've been wondering when they'd switch CoPilot over to GPT-4. I didn't expect it would happen so soon, so I'm surprised.

https://github.com/features/copilot subtitle

> GitHub Copilot uses the OpenAI Codex to suggest code and entire functions in real-time, right from your editor.

(not sure if it's 4 or 3 tho)

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#133

Post by HervalFreire » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:56 AM UTC

jmcgeeney wrote: post #72

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 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…

Except the fact that it does both. It commits mistakes AND it also comes up with remarkable, novel output that makes sense. Perhaps you just haven't seen an example of it that's convincing enough.

https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/

Here's another one.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#134

Post by marviel » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:56 AM UTC

okaleniuk wrote: post #93

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…

I would go even further. People are not even that advanced stochastic parrots. In the similar task, we failed just as spectacularly as the GPT-4 did right now. Rust, Zig, Julia, Kotlin, and dozens smaller "new" languages fail to bear a smear of originality in them. Their authors remixed old ideas in different proportions and got different grammars as a result. That's something an LLM can do and much faster too. But t…

Thanks for pointing out Unison -- I'm definitely going to check it out.

There is another language in this space I've had my eye on as well, but I can't recall the name at the moment.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#135

Post by wruza » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:56 AM UTC

okaleniuk wrote: post #93

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…

I would go even further. People are not even that advanced stochastic parrots. In the similar task, we failed just as spectacularly as the GPT-4 did right now. Rust, Zig, Julia, Kotlin, and dozens smaller "new" languages fail to bear a smear of originality in them. Their authors remixed old ideas in different proportions and got different grammars as a result. That's something an LLM can do and much faster too. But t…

I would go even further. People are not even that advanced stochastic parrots. In the similar task, we failed just as spectacularly as the GPT-4 did right now. Rust, Zig, Julia, Kotlin, and dozens smaller "new" languages fail to bear a smear of originality in them. Their authors remixed old ideas in different proportions and got different grammars as a result.

It wasn’t an originality contest, so there’s at least one non-sequitur in that statement. Everyone can create an original syntax, given modern character sets and formatting abilities. The key issue with that is the amount of developers who want to learn and switch between these is low.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#136

Post by Jensson » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:56 AM UTC

HervalFreire wrote: post #112

Jensson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 differe…

The fact that it adapts it state to fit the data isn't interesting in itself. An image recognition system forms a lot of macro structures around shapes or different logical parts of the image. Similarly an LLM forms a lot of macro structures around different kinds of text structures or words, including chess game series or song compositions or programming language tutorials. It is exactly the same kind of structures, just that some thinks those structures are sign of intelligence when they are applied to texts.

Can such macro structures model intelligence in theory? Yes. But as we see in practice they aren't very logical. For example in this article we see that its markov chain didn't have enough programming language descriptions, so it veered into printing brace scoped code when it said the language had whitespace based scoping. Similarly in popular puzzles, just change the words around and it will start printing nonsense since it cares about what words you use and not what those words mean.

Edit: Point is that existence of such structures doesn't make a model smart. You'd need to prove that these structures are smarter than before.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#137

Post by 1attice » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:56 AM UTC

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.

I don't know who is reading this who can help. If you know someone closer to the fire, pass this along.

OpenAI -- its people, its buildings, its servers -- need nation-state level protection. This is an ICBM you could put on a thumb drive -- in fact, it's far worse than a loose nuke, because a nuclear weapon has a geographically limited range.

There need to be tanks and guards and, like, ten NSAs in a ring formation around this thing. At pain of x-risk, do not treat this like a consumer-facing product. This is not DoorDash.

This isn't a threat to national security. This isn't even a threat to the entire geopolitical order. This is a threat to the possibility of a geopolitical order.

OpenAI's assets -- its people, its servers, its buildings -- just became the most desirable resources on the planet. It behooves any actor with ambition to secure at least a copy, and ideally, capture at least some of the people who created it.

It doesn't matter if the threat actor is China, or Russia, extraterrestrials, or mermaids. You will find out who wants it shortly. But you know now -- you know from game theory, the body of mathematics that has kept the peace since the invention of atomic weapons -- what happens next.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#138

Post by marviel » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:57 AM UTC

testrun wrote: post #79

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…

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.

When we're creating something "new" -- are you positing that it isn't built on top of other ideas, being combined in new ways?

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#139

Post by raincole » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:58 AM UTC

jmcgeeney wrote: post #72

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 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…

It's totally possible that humans don't do reason. It's possible that the parrot in our brain makes the decision, and then the "frontend" of our mind makes fake reasons that sound logical enough.

But it's just a possibility, and I don't find it's particularly convincing.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#140

Post by visarga » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:58 AM UTC

mmoskal wrote: post #6

It says it has indentation syntax but it clearly uses braces TypeScript-like. I wonder why author describes it as a mix between Python and TypeScript.

So it is proof that GPT4 still makes mistakes. But just one reported mistake in a very long session. And it could fix itself if prompted.