Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ideas I'm expressing have merit -- but are they wholly original? I think the difference is that your intention is to write sentences which you think and believe are correct and which can help other people understand the subject. Chatbot has no intentions of its own, it only imitates texts it has read from the internet. As far as it is concerned they might be totally wrong. You on the other hand have the ability…
We don't know enough about how the brain work to be able to say that our "intent" is any more than a combination of memory and an after the fact rationalisation of a stochastic process.
GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
331–338 of 338 posts
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#332Earlier 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…
ChatGPT doesn't perceive anything.
ChatGPT does not have a mind.
People making claims otherwise are either 1) delusional or 2) fraudsters. (There is no option 3.) I'm not sure which is less bad and I'm frankly surprised that you've made these claims about ChatGPT 'understanding' and 'perceiving' and having a mind under what appears to be a real name account (and very aggressively too).
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd argue that remixing is the fundamental force of creativity. Yes, but. Creativity - real creativity - is in choosing the right pieces to remix out of the immense amount of what's available. And, perhaps just as important, choosing what not to put in the remix. There's an immense difference between a meal prepared by a good chef, and throwing random ingredients in a blender. They both remix. But they are not remo…
Your example here is obvious right? All humans agree with you because all humans can tell the difference. The thing with these LLMs is that it's exhibiting both seemingly random remixes and remixes with extreme creativity. A lot of people see some error and flaw with chatGPT or they don't dig deep enough and they miss the fact that there are many instances of intelligent remixing of creative data. Real creativity. Tr…
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I want to reemphasize another portion of my comment: it really does seem that when you step outside of the domain of the internet, the error rates rise dramatically especially when there is completely no analogous situation. This is not surprising. A human would suffer from similar errors at a similar rate if it were exclusively fed an interpretation of reality that only consisted of text from the internet. >These m…
> This is not surprising. A human would suffer from similar errors at a similar rate if it were exclusively fed an interpretation of reality that only consisted of text from the internet. I think this is surprising at least if the bot actually understands, especially for domains like math. It makes errors (like in adding large numbers) that shouldn't occur if it wasn't smearing together internet data. We would expect…
Yes. You are pointing out various flaws which again is quite obvious. Everyone knows of the inconsistencies with these LLMs.
Too this I again say that the LLM understands some things and doesn't understand other things, its understanding of things is inconsistent and incomplete.
The only thing needed to prove understanding is to show chatGPT building something that can only be built by pure understanding. If you see one instance of this, then it's sufficient to say on some level chatGPT understands aspects of your query rather then doing a trivial query-response correlation you're implying is possible here.
Let's examine the full structure that was built here:
chatGPT was running an emulated terminal with an emulated internet with an emulated chatGPT with an emulated terminal.
It's basically a recursive model of a computer and the internet relative to itself. There is literally no exact copy of this anywhere in it's training data. chatGPT had to construct this model via correctly composing multiple concepts together.
The composition cannot occur correctly without chatGPT understanding how the components compose.
It's kind of strange that this was ignored. It was the main point of the example. I didn't emphasize this because this structure is obviously the heart of the argument if the article was read to the end.
Literally to generate the output of the final example chatGPT has to parse bash input execute the command over a simulated internet onto a simulated version of himself and again parse the bash sub command. It has a internal stack that it must use to put all the output together into a final json output.
So while It is possible for simple individual commands to be correlated with similar training data... for the highly recursive command on the final prompt.... There is zero explanation for how chatGPT can pick this up off of some correlation. There is virtually no identical structure on the internet... It has to understand the users query and compose the response from different components. That is the only explanation left.
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It doesn't understand anything. It combines symbols according to a probabilistic algorithm and you assign meaning to it. This is what the human brain does. I'm not assigning meaning to it. I am simply saying the algorithm is isomorphic to our definition of the word "understanding". No additional meaning. >Because you keep replying with statements indicating you are yet to grasp it. No no. What's going on here is I'm…
> This is what the human brain does. The human brain is embodied in a human flesh and uses language to exchange models and data about the real world with other fleshy vessels. This provides a basis to assign meaning to the language. Furthermore we know that humans understand to a greater or lesser extent because we are human and have insight into the human experience of language and reality. These machine learning al…
Everything in the universe has a set of rules governing it's existence. To understand something means that one can create novel answers to questions about something. Those answers however must make sense with the rules that govern the "something" at hand. This answer must also not be "memorized" in some sort of giant query-response lookup table.
That's it. That's what I'm saying.
For example if I ask chatGPT to emulate a bash terminal and create a new directory it can do so indicating it understands how a filesystem works. That is understanding.
I never said that LLMs are human. However understanding things is an aspect of being human and chatGPT captures a part of that aspect.
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your example here is obvious right? All humans agree with you because all humans can tell the difference. The thing with these LLMs is that it's exhibiting both seemingly random remixes and remixes with extreme creativity. A lot of people see some error and flaw with chatGPT or they don't dig deep enough and they miss the fact that there are many instances of intelligent remixing of creative data. Real creativity. Tr…
There is not a single example of chatGPT being creative.
Your responses to me in other threads were fucking rude and as a result I now literally hate you. So why bother, just leave and save everyone the trouble.
Nobody cares for your opinion if you're going to continuously insult everyone you fucking talk to.
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is what the human brain does. The human brain is embodied in a human flesh and uses language to exchange models and data about the real world with other fleshy vessels. This provides a basis to assign meaning to the language. Furthermore we know that humans understand to a greater or lesser extent because we are human and have insight into the human experience of language and reality. These machine learning al…
Flesh and understanding are separate concepts. The experience of being human is a separate concepts from understanding. Everything in the universe has a set of rules governing it's existence. To understand something means that one can create novel answers to questions about something. Those answers however must make sense with the rules that govern the "something" at hand. This answer must also not be "memorized" in…
The experience of being human is what allows me to infer meaning from the words, phrases, sentences, etc. that a human generates. This is what allows me to make the leap from text to understanding (or lack, or incomplete understanding, or confusion, or deception) with human-generated responses. This is what I have in that case of humans, which allows me to interpret their statements one way; and what I lack with machines, which means I have no basis for inferring understanding the same way I do with a human. If I was not human, I would not be able to infer meaning from the noises a human makes, except by observing correlations between those noises and their behavior. This is well understood in cognitive science and animal behavior.
> To understand something means that one can create novel answers to questions about something. Those answers however must make sense with the rules that govern the "something" at hand. This answer must also not be "memorized" in some sort of giant query-response lookup table.
chatGPT is functionally equivalent to a lookup table with randomization.
> For example if I ask chatGPT to emulate a bash terminal and create a new directory it can do so indicating it understands how a filesystem works. That is understanding.
It replies with a text output that is a probabilistic representation of the text that one might find on the internet in response to such a query. The emulation occurs in your mind when you read the response and assign meaning to the words and phrases it contains.
> However understanding things is an aspect of being human and chatGPT captures a part of that aspect.
You have not shown that chatGPT is anything different than a fancy lookup table with some randomization.
Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language
#338Earlier 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…
"Some programming languages like TypeScript and Swift use a colon for both variable type annotations and function return types."
This is incorrect for Swift, which uses the same arrows as "TenetLang" for function return types. Actually the first thing I thought looking at the example code was "looks swifty but not quite as well designed."