That language exists already. TenetLang actually is Swift
GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
251–260 of 338 posts
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#252Hmm it suggested whitespace syntax and then generated a curly brace language.
The language it described already exists too - it’s F#
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#253Earlier 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…
>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.
So, like the average voter?
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#254Anyone else notice TenetLang looks an awful lot like Motoko?
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Taking a long time to learn something doesn't mean that something wasn't learned nor understood. Two separate topics. Even chatGPT understands this: 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 anyth…
I have to disagree with that. Like maybe for a toy example to demonstrate what I'm talking about, imagine I was teaching you the addition operation mod 100 and I gave a description of the operation f(x, y) = x + y % 100 for x, y in Z_100. If you take more than 100^2 samples to learn the function, I'm not sure you understand the function. Obviously, in that many samples, you could've just specified a look up table without understanding what each operation is doing or what the underlying domain is.
Part of why sample efficiency is interesting is that humans have high sample efficiency since they somehow perform reasoning and this generalizes well to some pretty abstract spaces. As someone who's worked with ML models, I'm genuinely envious of the generalization capabilities of humans and I think it's something that researchers are going to have to work on. I'm pretty sure there's still a lot of skepticism in academia that scale is everything needed to achieve better models and that we're still missing lots of things.
Some of my skepticism around claims of LLMs reasoning or performing human like things is that they really appear to not generalize well. Lots of the incredible examples people have shown are very slightly out of the bounds of the internet. When you start asking it for hard logic or to really synthesize something novel outside the domain of the internet, it rapidly begins to fail seemingly in proportion to the amount of knowledge the internet may have on it.
How might we differentiate being a really good soft/fuzzy lookup table of the internet that is able to fuzzily mix language together from genuine knowledge and generalization. This might just be a testament to the sheer scope and size of the internet in how much apparent capabilities GPT has.
This isn't to say they cannot be useful ever, a lot of work is derivative, but I think there's a large portion of the claim that it's understanding things that's unwarranted. Last I checked, chatGPT was giving wrong answers for the sums of very large numbers which is unusual if it understands addition.
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No but that does happen a lot of the time. The difference is that we can choose to engage the deductive engine to verify what the parrot says. Sometimes it's easier to do so (what's 17×9?) and sometimes it's harder (a ball and a bat costs $1.1 and the bat costs $1 more than the ball, what does the ball cost?)
You can ask ChatGPT to show it's working too. It's likely, for many things, (as it is with humans a lot of the time) that the way it does it when it walks you through the process is entirely different to how it does it when it just spits out an answer, but it does work. E.g. I asked it a lot of questions about the effects of artificial gravity using a rotating habitat a few days ago, and had it elaborate a lot of the answers, and it was able to set out the calculations step by step. It wasn't perfect - it made the occasional mistakes - but it also corrected them when I asked follow-up questions about inconsistencies etc. the same way a human would.
(Funnily enough, while both your example questions are easy enough, I feel I was marginally slower on your "easy" question than your "harder" one)
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems only yesterday that we were marvelling at the capabilities of ChatGPT - it's ability to parse the sum knowledge of humankind and synthesise not trivial responses to questions we posed. But look how far we've come since those heady and carefree days. We're already able to pour buckets of scorn on its capabilities, and brush them aside as if designing a language (albeit a derivative and uninspired one) is a tr…
ChatGPT is both impressive and scary. We know how things work: there is no way to slow down this train. However it is already having an impact on things like education. Teacher don't have good enough tools to detect cheaters, and students are going to suffer because of that. Honest ones will be wrongly accused. Cheaters will get good grades. The only solution I see is to ban any graded homework. What will be the othe…
> ban any graded homework.
Modern countries don't do homework, other than reading, for ages
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve seen countless comments stating that it is just predicting the next token, move along, nothing to see here.
That is literally what LLMs do though. Those comments try to explain how it works so you better can see how it produced the results you see, they aren't trying to say that the program is worthless just that it isn't the magic some people think it is. These models are trained to produce text snippets that look like text snippets it has seen before, and it has seen all internet. That means it can do a lot of impressive…
These comments are deceptive. Yes, this is how LLMs work, but that doesn't mean they only repeat things they have seen before. LLMs are capable of following instructions to construct new words in any language they know, words never seen before.
I've seen it being dumb in maths or real world problems. But as a large language models, they understand and speak languages fine, and even mistakes they make look like mistakes humans who are not natives in the language would make.
We may as well say that when we speak, we are just predicting words we have trained on. I don't see how these models are worse than people in that regard.
The general knowledge and thinking of these models are surely limited. But seeing GPT-4 go from text only input to text with images, I think it is very possible to break the barriers very soon.
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#259This stuff makes me sick to my stomach. I hate this future. How can I continue my career when it is for progressing this monstrosity, watching it claw in another component of my humanity piece by piece? All I want to do is stroke oil paintings, hand written notes, products of the heart and the ernest mind. I feel dread that my life is over. These headlines are killing me inside. I wish I could more easily discriminat…
we ( the software industry ) have spent the last 60 years intruding in other people's job and automating most of their task using computers. Under the saying "it will remove the most boring parts of your activity, and let you focus on where you really make a difference " i guess it's time to taste a bit of our own medecine.
OP is clearly distressed and you replied with with what comes out as “it’s your fault and you deserve this.” It costs nothing to refrain from replying and only the smallest amount of effort to provide some solidarity with your fellow human.
OP, I feel you-I had a similar response to this clearly orchestrated PR campaign. OpenAI really loves that people think that it can replace the entire tech industry with an API. It would mean they are the most valuable company ever to exist.
Personally, I’ve been through so many hype waves of “this will take our jobs!!!1” I’m a bit inured to the whole thing. My personal belief is that software development will be the last one to go, the ones to turn out the lights. And we should be grateful that our jobs go away. Let’s go drink wine and eat cheese in the forest, dancing under a moonlit sky.
My advice is to get offline, talk to a loved one, pet a dog, go look at art, meditate, basically anything that doesn’t involve a screen.
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Look up split brain experiments [1]. Basically, in patients where the corpus callosum is severed to some degree, the two halves of the brain have limited communication. Since the two halves control different parts of the sensory system, you can provide information selectively to one or the other half of the brain, and ask that part of the brain to make choices. If you then provide the other half of the brain the wrong information, and ask it to reason about why it made a choice, the other brain will happily pull a ChatGPT and "hallucinate" a reason for a choice neither that half nor the other half of the brain ever made.
While that does not prove that we never apply reasoning ahead of time, it is a pretty compelling indication that we can not trust that reasoning we give isn't a post-rationalisation rather than an indication of our actual reasoning, if any.