Live data from Hacker News

Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

szopa.medium.com

181–190 of 212 posts

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like your observation that this "isn't a complicated question" is leaning on an implicit assumption that ChatGPT is a general AI and not a LLM. It is just generating text based on probabilities -- it isn't "reasoning". I might go as far to say that inferences computed by a LLM are of all the same complexity but I don't really know enough about ChatGPT to be confident in that statement.

People keep repeating that LLMs are "just generating text based on probabilities". That statement doesn't mean anything. I think people who say this are imagining LLMs work something like a statistical model. Maybe it's doing a linear regression or works like a Markov chain. It's not. A single artificial neuron sort of works like that. But that's sort of like saying a single transistor is just an electronically contr…

> That means computers can theoretically compute anything that's possible to compute given enough time and memory, which includes anything a human could figure out.

Whoa, that's quite a leap there. Not sure where we (as society) are with our understanding of intuition, but I doubt a million monkeys would recognize that the falling of an apple is caused by the same agent as the orbit of planets.

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, by approaching arithmetic as an algorithm to be performed and taught similarly to how it's done with people, you can supercharge accuracy to basically 100% for up to 13 digit addition and >90% after. This is strikingly clear evidence that it is capable of logical reasoning and "knows things", and puts to rest repeated claims that it is just memorization and collaging. You can't memorize every combo of two 1…

> repeated claims that it is just memorization and collaging I don't think anyone who has actually used GPT-4 for more than a few minutes ever believed this. It was just a trendy thing to say for a while.

It's rather said by people who have a rough understanding of how ML is implemented, rather then those who are mesmerized by its output.

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things that always gives me a little hit of hype is when I tell it to do something ridiculous and it just dutifully starts spitting out the result without complaining or questioning lol

I was thinking exactly the same as I read the OP, right where the dad+kid were answering hypothetical ChatGPT questions with Yes and No. I think LLMs inference training should include teaching it to ask questions back before starting full-fledged generation. You know, make it a little more Socratic. Right now the approach is: ChatGPT starts answering and, if it's going the wrong way, you either hit "Stop Generating"…

I've seen people do this with some prompt engineering! One I saw was for tuning prompts, you told GPT to ask questions which could help it better understand the prompt then incorporate your answers into a new prompt which could be better then loop that until it hits a certain score or rating!

It does feel like it should be more commonplace or even just the basis of how these things function because sometimes it just goes off on something completely unrelated because my prompt was bad haha

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if that is how our brain produces dreams? The guardrails are down so it will just start producing ridiculous and/or implausible things. Edit: It almost seems like you are anthropomorphizing it. It is just a program doing what it's supposed to be doing: to predict the next token based on its weights. Nothing more, nothing less. It does give the illusion of intelligence. Pretty soon, though, we may not be able…

> It is just a program doing what it's supposed to be doing: to predict the next token based on its weights. Nothing more, nothing less. Every time I see a comment along these lines it gives me pause: there is a built-in assumption that each of us is somehow doing something more than this. I'm not convinced. I've heard people refer to some of our instinctive behaviors as due to "our lizard brain", suggesting that our…

YES! I feel the same! I frequently see myself make the same kinds of mistakes I see ChatGPT make or I just go overly deep into thought and start thinking about the fact that, especially when communicating, I'm not prethinking my words or anything I'm just coming up with the next word on the fly. Sometimes I lose my train of thought mid conversation and end up seeing a sentence like "it makes me happy that.." and end up finishing it out of context before realizing I was talking about something else.

It's the same with speech, sometimes if I'm looking for something nice to say to someone but nothing is top of mind I'll just seed myself by starting a sentence "You are great honestly I was just thinking about how..." and then just hope my brain finishes it for me. Usually it does but sometimes it ends in me explaining why I stopped haha

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#185
post #172
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT is auto regressive. That means each output token becomes part of the new input sequence. Which is to say, the beginning of the model’s answer becomes part of your prompt. If the model makes some mistake in the beginning, it now needs to explain / make sense of that mistake. Kind of like a split-brain patient whom you ask why they got up, and they then say, to get a Coke. [1] In psychology, that is called confabul…

The psychology of split-brain is a nice gateway to 'The Bicameral Mind', a major theme about how the conception of the AI's works in the series Westworld. Nice!

Thank you. I am, in fact, reading it. Fascinating read. (How come all the best books were written in the 70s? Just survivership bias?)

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#186
post #175
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, I've had this exact experience with people many times as well There's a difference between some people sometimes needing to be reminded to do something, and them flat out not being able to do it due to fundamental cognitive limitations. >"E.g. I just tested by asking GPT4 for a multiplication method and then asked it to use it on two numbers I provided and show its working, and it did just fine." That's becau…

> There's a difference between some people sometimes needing to be reminded to do something, and them flat out not being able to do it due to fundamental cognitive limitations. GPT4 isn't "flat out not able to do it" when reminded. My point was that I have had the same experience of having to prompt step by step and go "why did you do that? Follow the steps" with both fully functional, normally intelligent people and…

> Again, I'm not saying they're reasoning like people

Cool, that’s really the only point I’m making. On the one hand it’s certainly true we can overcome a lot of the limitations imposed by that basic token sequence prediction paradigm, but they are just workarounds rather than general solutions and therefore are limited in interesting ways.

Obviously I don't know for sure how things will pan out, but I suspect we will soon encounter scaling limitations in the current approach. Not necessarily scaling limitations fundamental to the architecture as such, but limitations in our ability to develop sufficiently well developed training texts and strategies across so many problem domains. That may be several model generations away though.

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#187

In context learning is hands down the biggest breakthrough of LLMs. The flexibility the model displays without updating weights is genuinely mind blowing, bordering on absurd especially if you've trained other kinds of models before. See here - https://imgur.com/a/w3DAYOi from the paper - https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09066 GPT 3.5's (4 is much much better) addition accuracy tanks after 2 digits. However, by approaching…

>However, by approaching arithmetic as an algorithm to be performed and taught similarly to how it's done with people, you can supercharge accuracy to basically 100% for up to 13 digit addition and >90% after. This is strikingly clear evidence that it is capable of logical reasoning and "knows things", and puts to rest repeated claims that it is just memorization and collaging. You can't memorize every combo of two 1…

[deleted]

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#188
post #186
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a difference between some people sometimes needing to be reminded to do something, and them flat out not being able to do it due to fundamental cognitive limitations. GPT4 isn't "flat out not able to do it" when reminded. My point was that I have had the same experience of having to prompt step by step and go "why did you do that? Follow the steps" with both fully functional, normally intelligent people and…

> Again, I'm not saying they're reasoning like people Cool, that’s really the only point I’m making. On the one hand it’s certainly true we can overcome a lot of the limitations imposed by that basic token sequence prediction paradigm, but they are just workarounds rather than general solutions and therefore are limited in interesting ways. Obviously I don't know for sure how things will pan out, but I suspect we wil…

> Cool, that’s really the only point I’m making.

To be clear, I'm saying that I don't know if they are, not that we know that it's not the same.

It's not at all clear that humans do much more than "that basic token sequence prediction" for our reasoning itself. There are glaringly obvious auxiliary differences, such as memory, but we just don't know how human reasoning works, so writing off a predictive mechanism like this is just as unjustified as assuming it's the same. It's highly likely there are differences, but whether they are significant remains to be seen.

> Not necessarily scaling limitations fundamental to the architecture as such, but limitations in our ability to develop sufficiently well developed training texts and strategies across so many problem domains.

I think there are several big issues with that thinking. One is that this constraint is an issue now in large part because GPT doesn't have "memory" or an ability to continue learning. Those two need to be overcome to let it truly scale, but once they are, the game fundamentally changes.

The second is that we're already at a stage where using LLMs to generate and validate training data works well for a whole lot of domains, and that will accelerate, especially when coupled with "plugins" and the ability to capture interactions with real-life users [1]

E.g. a large part of human ability to do maths with any kind of efficiency comes down to rote repetition and generating large sets of simple quizzes for such areas is near trivial if you combine an LLM at tools for it to validate its answers. And unlike with humans where we have to do this effort for billions of humans, once you have an ability to let these models continue learning you make this investment in training once (or once per major LLM effort).

A third is that GPT hasn't even scratched the surface in what is available in digital collections alone. E.g. GPT3 was trained on "only" about 200 million Norwegian words (I don't have data for GPT4). Norwegian is a tiny language - this was 0.1% of GPT3's total corpus. But the Norwegian National Library has 8.5m items, which includes something like 10-20 billion words in books alone, and many tens of billions more in newspapers, magazines and other data. That's one tiny language. We're many generations of LLM's away from even approaching exhausting the already available digital collections alone, and that's before we look at having the models trained on that data generate and judge training data.

[1] https://sharegpt.com/

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep repeating that LLMs are "just generating text based on probabilities". That statement doesn't mean anything. I think people who say this are imagining LLMs work something like a statistical model. Maybe it's doing a linear regression or works like a Markov chain. It's not. A single artificial neuron sort of works like that. But that's sort of like saying a single transistor is just an electronically contr…

> That means computers can theoretically compute anything that's possible to compute given enough time and memory, which includes anything a human could figure out. Whoa, that's quite a leap there. Not sure where we (as society) are with our understanding of intuition, but I doubt a million monkeys would recognize that the falling of an apple is caused by the same agent as the orbit of planets.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not making any claim there. I'm just defining what Turing-complete means for those who don't already know.

Re: Teaching ChatGPT to speak my son’s invented language

#190
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT already speaks Lojban, or at least enough to fool me.

It appears not: "vaguely grammatical and has some of the right words" according to someone who actually knows: https://www.reddit.com/r/lojban/comments/12i0d0i/chatgpt_app... Not surprising, given it would have seen many orders of magnitude less Lojban training data than its English input (basically two books and maybe a few megabytes of web pages).

The word by word translation sounds like it's trying to say that it isn't very competent at lojban, but that it can try to learn lojban if you provide it with parallel examples. All this said in broken lojban, as expected. Quite reasonable, actually.
Post reply on HN