61–69 of 69 posts
Not sure about physics but I am really looking forward to see games with NPC characters powered by ChatGPT. That would make some game world really deep and involving.
Thank you for this comment, it really made me happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the text is completely content-free Since the same could be said about your comment, perhaps you could amend your critique?
Since I got so many downvotes, let me share the specific claims: “Dynamic Geometric Interactions in Multi-Layered Spacetime" This hypothesis proposes that spacetime consists of multiple interconnected layers, each with its unique geometry and properties. The fundamental forces and particles emerge from the interactions between these layers and the geometric transformations that take place within and between them. Mul…
This is really awful, the text is completely content-free but it's got everyone who's not a domain expert hooked. I didn't know whether ChatGPT's ability to babble convincingly was going to cause trouble or be a funny quirk that we all knew about and worked around, but this thread is really making it look like the pessimists were right about it. The problem is that it gets past many people's filters because its phras…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since I got so many downvotes, let me share the specific claims: “Dynamic Geometric Interactions in Multi-Layered Spacetime" This hypothesis proposes that spacetime consists of multiple interconnected layers, each with its unique geometry and properties. The fundamental forces and particles emerge from the interactions between these layers and the geometric transformations that take place within and between them. Mul…
I am sorry, but it tricked you. That is not really a hypothesis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too have a PhD and a few papers. If you think generating a good hypothesis wasn’t the hard bit then in my opinion you never did get what science was about. In my opinion. Which is the minority among todays scientists. It’s like People dont even know what they’re doing wrong.
> If you think generating a good hypothesis wasn’t the hard bit then in my opinion you never did get what science was about [..] Is a good hypothesis important? Sure. Is it easy to get that bit wrong? Yes, and lots of people do. I'm reminded of one of Paul Graham's quotes: "I also have a theory about why people think this. They overvalue ideas. They think creating a startup is just a matter of implementing some fabul…
And this doesn’t even touch the question of what’s different between basic science and entrepreneurship.
Not sure about physics but I am really looking forward to see games with NPC characters powered by ChatGPT. That would make some game world really deep and involving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT lowers information complexity by smoothing and averaging the information content, so no, likely you'll see the opposite effect. We already went through this with Stable Diffusion - the content it produces looks very professional, but also somehow exactly the same no matter the subject.
This assumes that you will have only a single model. I expected at least one model per race (elves, dwarfs...) x adversity (friend, enemy, neutral) x some psychological models (e.g. Jung personality archetypes). So with ~100 GTP models learned on different sets you may have a quite diverse army of characters. ChatGPT also offers a possibility to e.g. have a real bargaining at the shops: "How much is that sword... ".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to simply ask it to make it brief, provide a summary or contain answer in N words and in my language it complied happily.
I have done that but it tends to actually omit some facts as well. This convo is after I asked it to stop adding disclaimers as you can see. I take it as just a quirk of a colleague and don’t mind it at this point lol.
This is the first example of an extended dialogue with GPT-4 that I have read, and the fact that it failed to obey the request to dispense with its repetitive disclaimers was perhaps the most interesting thing to me about it. It seems somehow more fluent to me than GPT-3, as though its verbal IQ has increased a few points, but GPT-3 was already quite articulate; I havent yet seen any examples of clear new abilities from GPT-4.
The substance of the dialogue struck me as generic and lacking novel insight, though the bar was of course set rather high (essentially 'Describe revolutionary new physics'). I've also been jaded by the past few years of advances in AI; if I had seen this transcript ten years ago I would have been surprised and impressed that an AI could have a conversation about theoretical physics, and could demonstrate an ability to discuss relevant concepts in a reasonable and confident manner.
The ability of large language models to exhibit sophisticated verbal reasoning, albeit not yet reliably so, is their most striking feature to me, and I do think that has great scientific potential; perhaps GPT-4 isn't yet a major advance in that respect, but I imagine an important foundation has been laid. I should say I'm grateful to you for publishing this Ramraj; the transcript and the impressions you and others have shared in this thread have been illuminating.
Anyone who is curious about the application of AI to theoretical physics may be interested in the work of the MIT physicist Max Tegmark and his group, which is still at an early stage. Here are some videos in which he discusses AI and physics, in increasing order of detail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dinfiuGqoQw (6 minute clip from a conversation with Lex Fridman)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atnfAHBfSI (20 minute presentation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkJkHB_c3nA (49 minute presentation)
I did this myself a few weeks ago, while I don’t want to sound crazy… I managed to get GPT to mathematically derive a formula and calculate actual results to explain some well known anomalies in physics. I’m aware that gpt might be imagining and contriving false conclusions … but I have no doubt that ai will be moving physics forward within the decade
Perhaps. Generative AI needs a way to receive feedback. AI learned to play chess by playing a lot, and the feedback was either winning, losing, or drawing. If generative AI can repeatedly test physics theories faster than humans, then we may witness progress in physics. AI could generate thousands of theories and conduct experiments successfully, possibly leading to new physics models. However, I am uncertain whether…
I've long felt that this may be the strongest argument against an AI singularity.
The technical ability to emulate the minds of the world's theoretical physicists and run accelerated simulations of their thought processes may be developed, but the generation of valid new insights in physics might depend strongly on observations and experiments conducted in the physical world, as seems to have been the case historically, and the virtual equivalents of those experiments may prove to be inadequate or impractical to implement.
Steven Pinker made a similar argument in this 2018 discussion with Sam Harris (the remarks begin at 65m03s in this recording [1]; the full conext begins at around 50m36s [2]). Harris is concerned about existential risks posed by advances in artificial intelligence, whereas Pinker is less so, in part for this reason. I agree with Harris that there are risks associated with artificial general intelligence, but I agree with Pinker and the parent comment about the dependence of the scientific process on experiment, and that an inability to conduct accelerated experiments in the physical world may undermine the standard argument about the inevitability of an AI singularity.
An AI capable of interfacing with the physical world might develop the ability to conduct accelerated physical experiments, but it would presumably face the same fundamental and contingent limits as human researchers, and the history of human science suggests those limits may impede exponential progress.