191–200 of 523 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dunno if there's some trickery going on under the hood, but GPT-4 does basic arithmetic correctly.
It statistically outputs the next probable value of text. There is a lot of math related text in the CommonCrawl (likely the biggest source of it's training). That is all the company who owns it claims that it does. There is no calculation, therefor no basic arithmetic being done correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me it shows how fundamental language is to intelligence. Not just that LLMs are very capable by themselves, but significantly improve speech and image models. We’ll need to break out of the Chomsky hierarchies and develop some new theories of language. Vocal communication isn’t unique to humans, a new theory should be more broadly applicable to non human and non vocal languages. I’m excited to see what big questio…
> We’ll need to break out of the Chomsky hierarchies and develop some new theories of language. We might need to develop some "new theories of language", covering other areas, but why exactly do you think we'd need to "break out of the Chomsky hierarchies"? Nothing about LLMs challenges Chomsky hierarchies. They do challenge Chomsky's ideas about language being an innate human quality, but that's about it. Besides th…
You can't tell me with a straight face that actual spoken language fits well in that hierarchy. It seems we can shoehorn it in with a 100B parameter turing machine definition, but that just makes my point that the constructed language hierarchy is not well suited for describing spoken languages if it takes such a large definition.
We should be able to find something like a new probabilistic theory of language that will do a much better job of describing spoken languages. Such a theory could help explain some LLM behaviors we see, and apply generally to other forms of noisy communication.
I'd wager that intelligence is nothing but a reified concept. Something which doesn't innately exist other than as an abstract concept which we have defined, to help us explain complex nature, without the need of fully understanding the underlying complexity giving rise to that nature. Like how cave men used the concept of "gods" for a satisfying explanation for why it rains - we use intelligence to ascertain why som…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It statistically outputs the next probable value of text. There is a lot of math related text in the CommonCrawl (likely the biggest source of it's training). That is all the company who owns it claims that it does. There is no calculation, therefor no basic arithmetic being done correctly.
If it's only statistics, what is the neural network for?
You could say the same for a character recognition system.
The elephant in the room in these discussions of AI is the concept of the corporation. Most of the things people are worried about AI doing are things corporations already do. Deceptive marketing, exploiting customer information, conspiring to keep prices high, creating distractions from things companies are doing, setting up monopolies, lying to customers - the usual. With AI, this can be automated. Most of this is…
There is a rebuttal to this view presented here by Robert Miles:
There is intelligence and it is artificial. I think some people have a real hard time grasping the term “artificial”. There is also this “true intelligence” spectre that gets invoked. Nobody agrees what is meant by it. It is also unclear why one should care.
I tried reading it twice, but I am very sorry, I wanted to say some ideas were.. short sighted, but it actually borders on stupid. Don’t know why this is on HN.
“Cars don’t walk, it is not True Mobility” “We have to understand legs first, to absurd degrees, before we can talk about True Mobility”. Ack, sorry.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck…
still not a duck though.
The elephant in the room in these discussions of AI is the concept of the corporation. Most of the things people are worried about AI doing are things corporations already do. Deceptive marketing, exploiting customer information, conspiring to keep prices high, creating distractions from things companies are doing, setting up monopolies, lying to customers - the usual. With AI, this can be automated. Most of this is…
If, however, you accelerate competition, eventually you might get just one corporation (perhaps appearing to be several, directed by the same "best-there-is" AI-CEO) that achieves world domination and can never be removed from power. An immortal dictator that never rests and can monitor each action of and interact personally with each person under their control at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most humans can tell you pretty accurately whether or not a passage contains a word.
That's most likely due to the way it tokenizes words. You have to be careful here, or else for similar reasons you might imply that dyslexics aren't intelligent.
The elephant in the room in these discussions of AI is the concept of the corporation. Most of the things people are worried about AI doing are things corporations already do. Deceptive marketing, exploiting customer information, conspiring to keep prices high, creating distractions from things companies are doing, setting up monopolies, lying to customers - the usual. With AI, this can be automated. Most of this is…
And nothing in the rules says that a dog can't play basketball.
What that would actually result in is a complete and utter lack of any accountable entities, which the government would block and stockholders wouldn't want to begin with.