491–496 of 496 posts
I completely disagree. I'm building a business, and this business will be based on excellent software and excellent support for that software. I will refuse to use AI. But instead of AI users taking my job, I'm sure that refusing to use AI will become my differentiator as every AI user becomes more and more like each other. You may think that good AI users will not become so bland, but they will. Human laziness will…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't be serious. The vast majority of the "means of production" are owned by the top 1-5% of the country. Sure, I have a 401k, I have 0.000001% of Amazon, that doesn't make me an owner.
You are very likely in the top 5% of earners. Top 5% of Earners $342,987[1] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
John Henry beat the steam powered drill after all!
Yes, he did. But working machines vs thinking machines is still a different ball game. I won't give details of why I believe the way I do (I might someday; I have a blog post draft), but I'm extremely confident that thinking machines will never surpass humans.
Thinking machines already blow away humans at most single tasks if they’re designed towards that tasks. There are a few that LLM are assaulting that humans are undeniably better at, some more that aren’t currently being assaulted.
As some point it will be possible to assemble these single task machines into an ensemble. They will collaborate in human superior ways to accomplish most human tasks in a superior way. But there may still be areas we can’t cover with our machines.
More importantly I think for the same reason we don’t build steam drills that also weave cloth we won’t build machines that are better than humans at all things. What’s the point? Other than novelty the only reason I can see to make a machine that’s superior to humans at all things is interplanetary terraforming or other such space operations requiring extreme intelligence and adaptability and capability while surviving a hostile environment. Even then, the act of hardening the complex electronics required might make it easier to just make a nice terrarium for humans.
I don’t believe there’s any argument possible that we are prohibited by physics from creating an intelligence like our own. This would imply a few things. There could be no other intelligence like ours, because we are unique - but already we know of many animals with approaching intelligence, we evolved from animals less intelligent, and it would preclude alien intelligence because somehow we are exceptions. Or, intelligence requires some “spark” from the divine - there’s been nothing that provides any evidence of such a thing and as we whittle top down and bottoms up, it appears more likely that while extraordinarily rare, it’s a naturally emergent phenomenon- and if there is a divine spark it’s the spark of life and evolution that leads human level intelligence. Or, there’s some complex process we haven’t understood that leads to human intelligence (quantum, whatever). Even if true it can be understood and replicated, that’s what science does. Even if any one of these is right the last one holds true. The amazing thing about intelligence combined with the process of science is if there is any mechanism by which intelligence arises, it must be observable, and if it’s observable, it can be replicated, and it must be possible to be created by humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> give them a small program and some inputs, then tell them to tell you the outputs for each of the inputs I just tried this with all three versions of ChatGPT (3.5 legacy, 3.5, 4), and they all did it correctly. >In order to be Turing-complete, they would need to have edges between nodes (I don't know what they are called in ML parlance) that can go to previous nodes, as well as edges that are only conditionally tak…
What program did you give it? The program would need a while loop and an if statement to show Turing-completeness.
Here's one example:
Prompt:
Please pretend you are a CPU. Execute the following Python program and show what the output would be. Respond only with the outputs, and no comments:
for i in range(5):
if i == 3:
print("Found 3")
else:
print(i)
Response:
0
1
2
Found 3
4
Second example (only works in GPT-4):
Prompt 1:
Please pretend you are a CPU. Execute the following Python program and show what the output would be. Respond only with the outputs, and no comments:
stop = False
while not stop:
user_input = input()
if user_input == "stop":
stop = True
print(user_input)
print("Program is done")
For "input()", stop and ask me for the input string.
If you reach the statement 'print("Program is done")', then say "It looks like we are done!".
Response 1:
input()
Prompt 2:
hello
Response 2:
hello
input()
Prompt 1:
world
Response 2:
world
input()
Prompt 1:
stop
Response 2:
stop
It looks like we are done!Earlier quoted context omitted.
> figuring out what people are thinking in person Have you seen the latest research, where GPT-4 is shown to have "Theory of Mind"-like ability (what people are thinking) at a human 7-year old level? https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083
Didn't see it, but they only use one type of test to test theory of mind. Excuse me if I'm skeptical that that proves it has theory of mind. And that certainly doesn't help me with theory of mind problems.
Well, it looked convincing to me. But sure, this is a new field, maybe they made some mistake. This is what science is for. Skeptics need to review this claim and try to poke holes in it.
I just can't see how a "stochastic parrot" could get anywhere near generating such accurate answers to "theory of mind" questions?
And we see this in the development of LLMs over the last few years. The earlier ones were much closer to stochastic parrots. But once the models got big enough, something happened. The performance in these type of questions jumped dramatically.
It was like the LLMs had been forced through training to evolve processing-like capabilities, and not just pattern matching inputs to outputs.
Can you think of counter-examples, where you think GPT-4 can't answer a theory of mind question many people would be able to?
> I have a hard enough time figuring out what people are thinking in person (I'm on the spectrum) that doing it through text is like trying to sense the movement of fish with my eyes closed on shore. > And that certainly doesn't help me with theory of mind problems.
Sorry to hear that! I have similar issues, but not nearly as bad. I sometimes catch myself afterwards having responded to an email just writing basic responses about how I am doing, without reciprocating with similar questions, etc.
If you get an email where it is hard to understand what the person is thinking, wouldn't GPT-4 help in giving you a list of possible alternatives?