GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

Post by oezi » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 7:24 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #191

RHSman2 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is when does guessing become a moot point? AlphaGo guessed it’s way to being the best. Can something guess it’s way to evolving into a less guessy thing? I think so. Look at us? I am aware of how it works and used to be ‘it’s ok, it won’t happen’ but now I am actually pretty concerned. We think GAI as the thing but there maybe a reality that doesn’t require full GAI to completely unhinge us. I mean, what…

> AlphaGo guessed it’s way to being the best. No it didn't, AlphaGo was backed by an algorithm that perfectly understood go and used that to train itself to play go better. That is a completely different situation. If you tried to make a go engine that only tried to replicate old moves then you'd have a hard time making it perform valid moves. ChatGPT is like such an engine and we just made it perform valid moves mos…

Post by 28304283409234 » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 7:29 AM UTC

yowzadave wrote: post #141

Last year, when Blake Lemoine was fired by Google for claiming his AI was sentient, a lot of people on this website sensibly noted that the danger of these chatbots was not that they were sentient, but that average people could easily be tricked into thinking that they were. And now here we are: it seems we tech people are every bit as susceptible to this kind of thinking as the average joes we looked down on. Actual…

Post by HervalFreire » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 7:31 AM UTC

worrycue wrote: post #179

HervalFreire wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but can you make the claim that they don't understand anything at all? That they're stochastic parrots? Because that's the direction where your own logic is taking you. I'll concede one thing, LLMs can't use vicious insults and subtle slights to cover up the lack of a good argument. That's a human specialty done by people who are too scared to admit that they're wrong.

> claim that they don't understand anything at all? They certainly don't understand enough to get things right without a few thousand examples already demonstrating the solution to a specific problem.

   ME: Does someone or something requiring a thousand examples to understand something imply that it doesn't understand anything?  
   
   CHATGPT: No, requiring a thousand examples to understand something does not necessarily imply that someone or something doesn't understand anything. It simply suggests that the thing being understood is complex and requires a significant amount of data or examples to fully grasp.

   CHATGPT: For example, in the context of machine learning, a large dataset of examples may be required to train a model to perform a specific task accurately. This does not mean that the model doesn't understand anything; rather, it suggests that it needs a lot of data to be able to generalize and apply its understanding to new situations.

   CHATGPT: Similarly, in the case of human learning, some concepts or ideas may be challenging to understand without multiple examples or explanations. This does not mean that the person doesn't understand anything; it simply suggests that they need more exposure to the concept to fully comprehend it.

   CHATGPT: In summary, the amount of data or examples required to understand something does not necessarily indicate a lack of understanding. It may simply reflect the complexity of the topic or the learning process.
  

Post by Jensson » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 7:33 AM UTC

anonzzzies wrote: post #228

xlii wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well put. I share the sentiment. I used GPT-3/3.5/4 for multiple tasks and I never found it useful. It just feels… average. It can “answer” many questions correctly but that’s only on the data set it’s been training on. I asked it to solve Elixir issues, write Elisp snippets, figure out why my Rust code was complaining about lifetimes and even went for easy mode and asked for JavaScript code. Only JavaScript (very po…

You probably never had to work with one of the 99% of programmers in the world that are not of your level (I am assuming it is high, otherwise you might just be very scared saying all this, and rightfully so), but me, working in the fortune 1000 company space, worked with many. Most of my colleagues can readily be replaced by gpt-4 today as far as coding and documentation goes. They make the same errors as you notice…

Post by anonzzzies » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 7:37 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #237

anonzzzies wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably never had to work with one of the 99% of programmers in the world that are not of your level (I am assuming it is high, otherwise you might just be very scared saying all this, and rightfully so), but me, working in the fortune 1000 company space, worked with many. Most of my colleagues can readily be replaced by gpt-4 today as far as coding and documentation goes. They make the same errors as you notice…

Many humans have lost their jobs to dumb programs before. If your job is mostly copying code snippets and modifying them a tiny bit then yeah, you should worry, these language models are great at that. If you are doing more creative coding then it will probably take a while.