301–310 of 338 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AlphaGo Zero It had basic rules of Go as an input.
It also had a program giving it potential moves it could play, and explained to it when it had won the game. That isn't zero input. We don't have such programs for logic or text. So there will be no GPT zero, at least until we have already solved logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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)
GitHub Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex,[10] which is a modified, production version of the Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3), a language model using deep-learning to produce human-like text.[11]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the criticism. And this a fundamental misunderstanding of the criticism of the criticism. The problem here is that yes the occasional errors demonstrate certain flaws in it's understanding of some topic. The issue is there are many times where it produces completely novel and creative output that could not have existed in the training data and can only be formulated through…
> The problem here is that yes the occasional errors demonstrate certain flaws in it's understanding of some topic. No, they demonstrate that the machine does not understand. > The issue is there are many times where it produces completely novel and creative output that could not have existed in the training data and can only be formulated through complete and understanding of the query it was given. What have you do…
But it doesn't prove that the machine does not understand everything period. It just doesn't understand the topic or query at hand. It does no say anything about whether the machine can UNDERSTAND other things.
>What have you done to eliminate the possibility that it assembled the words algorithmically and the solution generated is something the reader constructed by assigning meaning to the text response? If the answer "can only be formulated through complete and understanding of the query it was given" then you must have eliminated this possibility.
This is easily done. The possibility is eliminated through the sheer number of possible compositions of assembled words. It assembled the words in a certain way that by probability can only indicate understanding.
>Where is the evidence that chatGPT understands a thing?
By composing words in a novel way that can only be done through understanding of a complex concept. But this composition of words or EVEN a close approximation of this composition CANNOT ever exist in another data set on the internet.
It takes one example of this for it to be proof that it understands.
>Thats an interpretation of the text output that you assigned based on what the words in the text mean to you. I could just as easily say that Harry Potter is self-aware.
No it's not. It's simply a composition of words that cannot be formulated without understanding. Harry Potter is obviously not self aware. But from the text of harry potter, WE can deduce that the thing that composed words to create Harry Potter understands what harry potter is. What composed the words to create Harry Potter? JK Rowling.
>I don't think you understand what we're discussing.
No it's just a sign of your own lack of understanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem here is that yes the occasional errors demonstrate certain flaws in it's understanding of some topic. No, they demonstrate that the machine does not understand. > The issue is there are many times where it produces completely novel and creative output that could not have existed in the training data and can only be formulated through complete and understanding of the query it was given. What have you do…
>No, they demonstrate that the machine does not understand. But it doesn't prove that the machine does not understand everything period. It just doesn't understand the topic or query at hand. It does no say anything about whether the machine can UNDERSTAND other things. >What have you done to eliminate the possibility that it assembled the words algorithmically and the solution generated is something the reader const…
No, the type of errors are indicative of a complete lack of understanding. That is the point. They are errors that a thinker with an incomplete understanding would never make. They are so garbled that not even a true believer such as yourself can find a way to shoehorn a possible interpretation of correctness into them; such that you are forced to admit that the machine is in error. Otherwise you and the other believers find an interpretation that fits and you conclude that the machine understands; revealing you yourself do not understand what 'understanding' really is.
> This is easily done. The possibility is eliminated through the sheer number of possible compositions of assembled words. It assembled the words in a certain way that by probability can only indicate understanding.
Thats nonsense. The machine assembles words in roughly the same probability that they occur in the training material. That is why it resembles sensible statements. The resemblance is superficial and exactly an artifact of this probability you find so compelling.
> By composing words in a novel way that can only be done through understanding of a complex concept.
You haven't eliminated the possibility of autopredict, merely ceased to consider it.
> Harry Potter is obviously not self aware.
There is more evidence for the sentience, self awareness, and understanding of concepts of Harry Potter than of chatGPT.
GTP is interesting enough without people pretending that it is more interesting than it is. This "new programming language" doesn't look new at all. It looks like the same old thing.
You should read further down in the article where it expands on some more advanced concepts -- but in general you're right -- it is really similar to existing languages. I wonder as its power changes, what paradigms it might suggest we break out of. I'd also recommend reading its responses that are non-code in detail -- for instance, in the comment where it introduces TenetLang, GPT-4 actually calls out that it's re-…
It's funny that everyone replies with "That language exists already.", and then proclaim it to be either: TypeScript, Python, Swift, Scala or F# etc. Why is it funny? Because GPT-4 was probably trained on examples from all of those languages, and has produced an averaged mashup of languages: so everyone can find something which is similar in it, and then pattern-match it to a (rather mainstream) language that they us…
I'd just as soon use F# as-is, instead of this hodge podge TenetLang.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>No, they demonstrate that the machine does not understand. But it doesn't prove that the machine does not understand everything period. It just doesn't understand the topic or query at hand. It does no say anything about whether the machine can UNDERSTAND other things. >What have you done to eliminate the possibility that it assembled the words algorithmically and the solution generated is something the reader const…
> But it doesn't prove that the machine does not understand everything period. It just doesn't understand the topic or query at hand. It does no say anything about whether the machine can UNDERSTAND other things. No, the type of errors are indicative of a complete lack of understanding. That is the point. They are errors that a thinker with an incomplete understanding would never make. They are so garbled that not ev…
No. You're wrong. chatGPT only knows of text. It derives incomplete understanding of the world via text. Therefore it understands some things and it understands others. It is clear chatGPT doesn't perceive things in the same way we do and it is clear the structure of its mind is different then ours so it clearly won't understand everything in the same way you understand it.
Why are you so stuck on this stupid concept? chatGPT doesn't understand everything. We know this. Humans don't understand everything we also know this. Answering a couple stupid questions wrong whether your human or chatGPT doesn't indicate that the human or chatGPT doesn't understand everything at all.
>You haven't eliminated the possibility of autopredict, merely ceased to consider it.
What in the hell is auto predict? Neural networks by definition are suppose to generate unmapped output if this is what you mean. 99 percent of output from neural networks is by definition unique from the training data.
>There is more evidence for the sentience, self awareness, and understanding of concepts of Harry Potter than of chatGPT.
This is a bad analogy. I'm not claiming sentience. My claim is that it understands you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it doesn't prove that the machine does not understand everything period. It just doesn't understand the topic or query at hand. It does no say anything about whether the machine can UNDERSTAND other things. No, the type of errors are indicative of a complete lack of understanding. That is the point. They are errors that a thinker with an incomplete understanding would never make. They are so garbled that not ev…
>No, the type of errors are indicative of a complete lack of understanding. That is the point. They are errors that a thinker with an incomplete understanding would never make. They are so garbled that not even a true believer such as yourself can find a way to shoehorn a possible interpretation of correctness into them; such that you are forced to admit that the machine is in error. Otherwise you and the other belie…
It doesn't understand anything. It combines symbols according to a probabilistic algorithm and you assign meaning to it.
> Why are you so stuck on this stupid concept?
Because you keep replying with statements indicating you are yet to grasp it.
> This is a bad analogy. I'm not claiming sentience. My claim is that it understands you.
There is just as much evidence for sentience as understanding.
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…
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…
So... this early-stage AI was able to make music that's better than the vast majority of commercial recording artists these days? I fail to see how that's a failure.