Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things created with GPT-4

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#41

Post by letmevoteplease »

lm28469 wrote: post #19
fiso64 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>not even their creators argue that Yes, their creators take the far more defensible and scientific position of saying "we don't know".

Not at all Same Altman (openAI ceo) : > The GPT-4 rumor mill is a ridiculous thing. I don’t know where it all comes from, people are begging to be disappointed and they will be. The hype is just like... We don’t have an actual AGI

He was responding to viral tweets[1] that said GPT-4 had "100 trillion parameters" and was "500x more powerful than GPT-3," which is indeed absurd hype. On the other hand, two weeks ago a team of Microsoft researchers put out a paper claiming that GPT-4 "could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."

[1] https://twitter.com/andrewsteinwold/status/15948895625260277...

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#42

Post by cahoot_bird »

ketzu wrote: post #28

It is so interesting to me seeing how everyone utilizes those large language models. I often wonder how they do it. I tried to get something usable out of ChatGPT now and then, but the code is littered with misunderstandings of the data format and errors and more problems. Maybe I am bad at explaining what I want to the system?

It can make mistakes and hallucinate. I've found GPT-4 to be slightly better than earlier versions.

Ideally tell it one step at a time you need done, I've found that it struggles with multiple overlapping steps for some things but not others. It can make tic-tac-toe in one prompt in HTML5 and Javascript. But maybe if you ask it to make it rain in the background or something like that in the same prompt it might mess everything up.

I've also found it's good at common problems and sometimes spotting the cause for syntax errors, but less common problems it might not know.

Hope that helps.

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#43

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

redeux wrote: post #29
turnsout wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ Yes, edited my post! I've spent HOURS tweaking prompts and going back and forth with GPT3–4 to get more creative and interesting output, but it's not there yet. This current generation will just never give you legitimately good song lyrics, let alone a game with an interesting and compelling mechanic.

Having played around with the same scenario, I’ve come to the naive conclusion that the lack of creative output is because the current generation of GPT is only able to regurgitate and not create. This makes everything feel very derivative. On the other hand, if you act as the creative mind and use GPT to accelerate your output, it becomes more useful.

Am I off base, or is "create" sort of amorphous in this context? It's already creating novel sentences and paragraphs. What is difference between that and real creation?

Personally it seems to me that if you feed a statistical model of a ton of input it's going to feed back the average of that input, leading to uninspiring phrases. Regarding game creation, we'd need to tell it about game mechanics, and I have no idea how it'd determine what's interesting or how it would innovate.

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#44

Post by Joeri »

turnsout wrote: post #18
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your BAD autogenerated asteroid clone. "Give it time" people will say, but how does one prompt ChatGPT to make a game fun, or a story actually interesting?

^ Yes, edited my post! I've spent HOURS tweaking prompts and going back and forth with GPT3–4 to get more creative and interesting output, but it's not there yet. This current generation will just never give you legitimately good song lyrics, let alone a game with an interesting and compelling mechanic.

Creativity is making unexpected connections, applying a twist that doesn’t logically follow from what came before. This is the opposite of what these models are designed to do, which is to give the most likely next word.

On the other hand, raising the temperature should allow unlikely sequences to be output, provided the model is trained on enough unlikely sequences as input. Also, most creative work does not require much creativity, so just a little human guidance may go a long way.

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#46

Post by eloff »

throw1234651234 wrote: post #9
eloff wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chat.openai.com, create an account and upgrade it to plus ($20/mo). There’s currently limits on how many messages you can send. There’s also an API.

Thanks, already messing with the free version, didn't know it was using GPT-4 - will try. P.S. Thanks to both of you, just replying to one comment to avoid spam.

The free version is still on 3.5.

I still use it, it’s faster and I can’t use the plus version that my company pays for for personal stuff.

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#47

Post by turnsout »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #43
redeux wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having played around with the same scenario, I’ve come to the naive conclusion that the lack of creative output is because the current generation of GPT is only able to regurgitate and not create. This makes everything feel very derivative. On the other hand, if you act as the creative mind and use GPT to accelerate your output, it becomes more useful.

Am I off base, or is "create" sort of amorphous in this context? It's already creating novel sentences and paragraphs. What is difference between that and real creation? Personally it seems to me that if you feed a statistical model of a ton of input it's going to feed back the average of that input, leading to uninspiring phrases. Regarding game creation, we'd need to tell it about game mechanics, and I have no idea…

I think that's it—these models are definitely capable of creating output not seen in the input, which we would define as human "creativity," and they can even combine concepts in novel ways, which is loosely what we call "innovation." But they are quite biased to create plausible output, which severely restricts their ability to create something interesting.

You can dial up the temperature, but this quickly pushes the output from "bland" to "totally unhinged."

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#48

Post by lm28469 »

letmevoteplease wrote: post #41
lm28469 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all Same Altman (openAI ceo) : > The GPT-4 rumor mill is a ridiculous thing. I don’t know where it all comes from, people are begging to be disappointed and they will be. The hype is just like... We don’t have an actual AGI

He was responding to viral tweets[1] that said GPT-4 had "100 trillion parameters" and was "500x more powerful than GPT-3," which is indeed absurd hype. On the other hand, two weeks ago a team of Microsoft researchers put out a paper claiming that GPT-4 "could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system." [1] https://twitter.com/andrewsteinwold/st…

You're missing the end of the quote, a bit further in the next sentence:

> including the possible need for pursuing a new paradigm that moves beyond next-word prediction.

So all in all "it's not AGI and we might need a paradigm shift to achieve it"

A paradigm shift being: "a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions."

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#49

Post by sharemywin »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #23
ambicapter wrote: post #14

Clicked on the second one and was immediately presented with a course to teach me how to use this fancy new AI-powered technology to revolutionize my business! Puts a certain taste in my mouth.

It appears many of the same people who were hyping crypto and meme stocks a year ago are hyping AI startups/courses now. The sales manuscript is basically identical with lots of manufactured FOMO. It's a shame because the technology itself is probably reasonably useful. It's really hard to tell though with all the bullshit surrounding it.

you just need to buy my course on AI course BS detection. it's only $995. but if you watch this short free webinar on 5 simple ways to tell as course is BS you can get it for only 3 payments of $499. But you have to watch until the end.

Re: Things created with GPT-4

#50

Post by dandellion »

lm28469 wrote: post #33
Name_Chawps wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can, right now, have GPT 4 write me sonnets on any topic. We are already beyond mere parroting. People say "it's just parroting what it's heard"! But did GPT4's training data really include a sonnet about Minecraft creepers? So they're not parroting. They're parroting PLUS something else. Plus some kind of analysis and transformation. Your claim is that this transformation is superficial and won't become deeper as…

Yes you can cherry pick things that work very well, in the meantime it still can't rhyme in French, which is 12 years old type of intelligence It's wrong > 50% of the time for anything semi complex and semi niche, that's not AGI, no one in the field of AI argue it's AGI, only people on twitter and reddit with absolutely no background in tech and/or AI argue it's AGI It's a very very very good chatbot, built with very…

I can't rhyme in French either. A lot of these comments just remind me of that Alan Kay quote: “Artificial intelligence is what we don’t know how to do yet.”

In the past year we've got models that can draw, write poetry and code better than a significant percentage of people, and now the goal posts are moving so fast they're even hard to see.

I'd probably agree that we're still a few breakthroughs away from something that could pass as AGI, but the current models are already better than just "parroting". And even if progress stales for the next 10 or 15 years like it has happened frequently with AI, everything that it has learned to do in the last couple years can be fine-tuned and made a lot more efficient, which I expect will have a big impact already.

Post reply on HN