31–40 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain your proof of that?
Not OP, but basically: Humans have the capacity to come up with new language, new ideas, and basically everything in our human world was made up by someone. ChatPT or similar, without any training data, cannot do this. Thus they're simply imitating
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain your proof of that?
Not OP, but basically: Humans have the capacity to come up with new language, new ideas, and basically everything in our human world was made up by someone. ChatPT or similar, without any training data, cannot do this. Thus they're simply imitating
> ChatGPT is a glorified word predictor. It isn’t sentient. It doesn’t know what it’s saying, and yes, you can coax it into admitting that it wants to take over the world or saying hurtful things (although it was specially conditioned during training to try to suppress such output). It’s simply stringing words together using an expansive statistical model built from billions of sentences. How do you differentiate it…
Human mind can perform actual reasoning, while ChatGPT only mirrors the output of reasoning and when it gets output correctly it's due to mixture of luck and closeness to training material. Human mind or even something like Wolfram Alpha can perform reasoning.
If a system is so lucky that it gives you the right answer 9 times out of 10, it's perhaps not luck anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain your proof of that?
Not OP, but basically: Humans have the capacity to come up with new language, new ideas, and basically everything in our human world was made up by someone. ChatPT or similar, without any training data, cannot do this. Thus they're simply imitating
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but basically: Humans have the capacity to come up with new language, new ideas, and basically everything in our human world was made up by someone. ChatPT or similar, without any training data, cannot do this. Thus they're simply imitating
Humans can't either, without training data. The biggest difference between chatGPT and humans is that humans are not trained solely on language.
Based on the current advances, in about a year we should see the first real-world interaction robot that learns from its environment (probably Tesla or OpenAI).
I'm curious (just leaving it here to see what happens in the future), what will be the excuse of Google this time.
This is again the same situation: Google has supposedly superior tech but not releasing it (or maybe it's as good as Bard...)
ChatGPT is a glorified word predictor. It isn’t sentient. It doesn’t know what it’s saying, and yes, you can coax it into admitting that it wants to take over the world or saying hurtful things (although it was specially conditioned during training to try to suppress such output). It’s simply stringing words together using an expansive statistical model built from billions of sentences. Is this true though? The publi…
> That would point to higher-level phenomena going on inside ChatGPT and its ilk, than merely statistics and predictions. No, it wouldn't, because nothing in "higher-level phenomena" precludes it being caused by statistics and predictions.
> ChatGPT is a glorified word predictor. It isn’t sentient. It doesn’t know what it’s saying, and yes, you can coax it into admitting that it wants to take over the world or saying hurtful things (although it was specially conditioned during training to try to suppress such output). It’s simply stringing words together using an expansive statistical model built from billions of sentences. How do you differentiate it…
“It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read. Do tell— how can you prove humans are any different? The most common “proofs” I’ve seen: “Humans are more complex”. Ok, so you’re implying we add more complexity (maybe more modalities?); if more complexity is added, will you continue to say “LLMs are just word predictors”? “Humans are actually reasoning. LLMs are not.” Again, how would you…
I wish people would be more clear on what exactly they believe the difference is between LLMs are actual intelligence.
Substrate? Number of neurons? Number of connections? Spiking neurons vs. simpler artifial neurons? Constant amount of computation per token vs variable?
Or is it "I know it when I see it"? In which case, how do you know that there isn't a GPT-5 being passed around inside OpenAI which you would believe to be intelligent if you saw it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human mind can perform actual reasoning, while ChatGPT only mirrors the output of reasoning and when it gets output correctly it's due to mixture of luck and closeness to training material. Human mind or even something like Wolfram Alpha can perform reasoning.
Without any external plugins, GPT can encode and decode base64 strings that are totally new. Again "luck" ? If a system is so lucky that it gives you the right answer 9 times out of 10, it's perhaps not luck anymore.
“It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read. Do tell— how can you prove humans are any different? The most common “proofs” I’ve seen: “Humans are more complex”. Ok, so you’re implying we add more complexity (maybe more modalities?); if more complexity is added, will you continue to say “LLMs are just word predictors”? “Humans are actually reasoning. LLMs are not.” Again, how would you…
If you had attached legs and arms to it, it could be a very interesting companion.