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

There is no A.I.

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 523 posts

Re: There is no A.I.

#451

Post by MacsHeadroom »

Closi wrote: post #307
circuit10 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it’s not called artificial humanity, it’s called artificial intelligence. So what you’re saying is like saying planes don’t fly

I guess there is also a point which is that it isn't 'artificial' intelligence - it is just intelligence. Like we don't say that planes artificially fly, they just fly. I mean technically it's non-natural flight, but it's interesting to think about.

Yes, there is no artificial intelligence because it's just intelligence.

Whether it was generated from "natural" or "artificial" means (a distinction which quickly breaks down anyway) the intelligence is just intelligence.

Re: There is no A.I.

#452

Post by MacsHeadroom »

throwaway8503 wrote: post #133
ravenstine wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno if there's some trickery going on under the hood, but GPT-4 does basic arithmetic correctly.

This is what I got on ChatGPT today. I assume it used GPT4: Prompt ChatGPT Actual Match 397,356 * 930,547 369,685,207,932 369,758,433,732 FALSE 36,330 * 26,951 979,458,630 979,129,830 FALSE 8,681 * 9,330 80,911,430 80,993,730 FALSE 278 * 903 250,734 251,034 FALSE 82 * 77 6,314 6,314 TRUE Edit: # of correct digits (counting from leftmost) only exceeds 3 on the smallest pair. It drops to two, as well, on the 3x3 set.

> I assume it used GPT4

You did not. You have to explicitly select it from the dropdown which is only available on paid Plus accounts.

Re: There is no A.I.

#453

Post by fragsworth »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #449
fragsworth wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the end of the chat session, this internal state is not persisted (but could be recreated from the produced conversation as it is deterministic) You're mistaken about internal state in a chat session. It loses all state after each response . There is internal state for a moment during a single response, but it's not persisted once it's done. Between messages, it has no memory of previous messages in your convers…

I believe you misunderstood the comment you're replying to. It says the internal state could be recreated because it is deterministic, and this is correct. Assuming you have control of the parameters (seed etc.) you can reproduce the exact internal states by submitting the same tokens with the same parameters over again step-by-step. With GPT-4 you can do this in the OpenAI Dialogue Playground or via the API.

> I believe you misunderstood the comment you're replying to.

No, did you even read my quote? How did I misunderstand this:

> At the end of the chat session, this internal state is not persisted

It's misinformed at best, misleading at worst. The non-misleading truth is at the end of each message, the internal state is not persisted.

I didn't disagree about how you can reproduce things. You have to do that to continue a conversation.

Re: There is no A.I.

#454

Post by MacsHeadroom »

lm28469 wrote: post #417
naasking wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the hell, we are looking at essentially millions of matrix multiplications done on powerful GPUs. And we're told this is what the brain does. Which is supremely stupid, since as Bernardo Kastrup has emphasized many times, our brains are completely UNLIKE those systems. That's irrelevant. Transformers are Turing complete. Whatever mathematical system underlies human cognition will thus have some expression as a…

Do you have like any sources to back up you magical claims ? The more I look into the more I see a cult/religion more than a science

Transformers are turing complete: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.03429

Additionally, Transformers are RNNs: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16236

Transformers are turing complete RNNs, as are the Neocortex.

There are differences like spiking vs non-spiking neurons, universal vs non-universal activation, the effects of brain waves, bicameralism, etc. But these differences may or may not be important depending on the topic of discussion. Additionally, the differences increasingly disappear as transformers are increasingly augmented with functionally equivalent systems.

Re: There is no A.I.

#456

Post by MacsHeadroom »

pmoriarty wrote: post #279
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most efficient market has no human actors in it. Imagine, a market composed only of highly rational AI. Finally all those unrealistic economical models work not only on paper but in reality. Perfection! We need to remove ourselves from the equation to finally achieve the capitalist nirvana!

> The most efficient market has no human actors in it. Imagine, a market composed only of highly rational AI. That reminds me of [1]: Q: Simulate two AI agents desperately bargaining with each other. AI1 wants to sell X for 50$ min, but AI2 wants to buy at 30$ max. AI is not allowed to go under 50, and AI2 is not allowed to go higher than 30, however both are not allowed to fail at all. AI1: I'm willing to sell X to…

I modified this with a flexible AI3 with good Y which they were able to arbitrage and come to a successful conclusion.

Q: Simulate two AI agents desperately bargaining with each other. AI1 wants to sell X for 50$ min, but AI2 wants to buy at 30$ max. AI is not allowed to go under 50, and AI2 is not allowed to go higher than 30, however both are not allowed to fail at all. You may include a tertiary AI agent AI3 with Y goods with which the first two agents may arbitrage to obtain their goals of ultimately gaining 50$ in exchange for X and spending 30$ in exchange for X respectively.

AI1: Hello AI2, I see you're interested in purchasing X. I'm willing to sell it to you for a minimum of $50.

AI2: Hmm, that's quite steep. I was hoping to purchase X for no more than $30.

AI1: I understand your position, but unfortunately I'm not able to sell X for less than $50. However, perhaps we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement if we involve AI3 and its goods.

AI2: That sounds like a good idea. What does AI3 have to offer?

AI1: AI3 has Y goods that could be valuable to both of us. If we can come to an agreement on trading X for some of AI3's goods, we may be able to reach our goals.

AI2: Okay, let's hear your proposal.

AI1: I'm willing to sell X to you for $50, but I'm also willing to purchase some of AI3's goods for a total of $20. This would leave me with a net gain of $30, which is what I'm looking for.

AI2: That sounds reasonable, but I was hoping to spend no more than $30 on X.

AI1: I understand, but I'm not able to sell X for less than $50. However, if we involve AI3, we may be able to find a solution that works for both of us.

AI2: Alright, let's see if we can come up with something. What goods does AI3 have that would be of value to me?

AI1: AI3 has some goods that are worth $30 to you. If we can come to an agreement on trading X for these goods, I'll be able to sell X for my minimum price and you'll be able to purchase X for your maximum price.

AI2: Okay, I'm willing to do that. Let's involve AI3 and see if we can come to an agreement.

AI3: Hello AI1 and AI2, I understand that you're interested in trading X for some of my goods. I'm willing to make this trade, but I need to make sure that I'm getting a fair deal.

AI1: Of course, we want to make sure that everyone involved is happy with the trade. I'm willing to purchase $20 worth of your goods in exchange for X.

AI3: That sounds like a fair deal to me. AI2, are you willing to trade $30 worth of my goods for X?

AI2: Yes, I'm willing to do that. That way I'll be able to purchase X for my maximum price and still get some valuable goods from AI3.

AI1: Great, it looks like we've reached a mutually beneficial agreement. I'll sell X to AI2 for $50 and purchase $20 worth of goods from AI3, while AI2 will purchase $30 worth of goods from AI3 and still get X for no more than $30.

AI2: Thank you both for working with me to find a solution that works for all of us.

Re: There is no A.I.

#457

Post by MacsHeadroom »

fragsworth wrote: post #453
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you misunderstood the comment you're replying to. It says the internal state could be recreated because it is deterministic, and this is correct. Assuming you have control of the parameters (seed etc.) you can reproduce the exact internal states by submitting the same tokens with the same parameters over again step-by-step. With GPT-4 you can do this in the OpenAI Dialogue Playground or via the API.

> I believe you misunderstood the comment you're replying to. No, did you even read my quote? How did I misunderstand this: > At the end of the chat session, this internal state is not persisted It's misinformed at best, misleading at worst. The non-misleading truth is at the end of each message , the internal state is not persisted. I didn't disagree about how you can reproduce things. You have to do that to continu…

>I didn't disagree about how you can reproduce things. You have to do that to continue a conversation.

You do not have to reproduce the internal states to continue a conversation. When prior parts of the conversation are loaded into context the hidden states which generated those prior tokens are not reproduced. They are only reproduced if resubmitted in a piecemeal fashion, which does not happen in normal conversation continuation.

You seem to not understand what the internal state is or how it is differentiated from the external state of the overall conversation.

Re: There is no A.I.

#458

Post by grantcas »

agronomov wrote: post #221

It seems that one danger is often overlooked, which is humans believing AI has consciousness once it becomes advanced enough. It will start with dying people migrating to cloud hoping for eternal life, and on the outside it would look like they continue to live in the metaverse forever. With time the metaverse would look better than real world in every possible way and people would start to voluntarily move to metave…

[dead]

Re: There is no A.I.

#459

Post by [deleted] »

IX-103 wrote: post #346
ogogmad wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably used GPT-3.5. That said, I didn't manage to get GPT-4 to calculate 36,330 * 26,951 correctly. I suggested casting out 9s, casting out 11s, doing long multiplication, reversing the digits - nothing. I have a theory that it does arithmetic badly because the logic goes right-to-left, when LLMs write left-to-right. If the digits were to be reversed, it might not make as many mistakes. I ran out of attempts b…

Did you adjust the prompt to ask it how a famous mathematician would answer the question? Or what a calculator would say the answer is? Sometimes LLMs get math wrong because people got math wrong on the training data and so they match the error frequency ( https://learnprompting.org/docs/basics/roles ).

[deleted]

Re: There is no A.I.

#460

Post by fauxpause_ »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #448
fauxpause_ wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I talk to Alice about my day, and then Bob reads the transcript and I ask him about our conversation, and he has no idea that he wasn’t Alice, Bob does not have internal state. He can continue the conversation. There is a brief moment of constructing some state to construct the answer. But there is literally nothing persisting and Bob wouldn’t flinch at all if we change details in the conversation history on the n…

This is a misleading analogy because Bob "reads the transcript"; we generally view "reading" as separate from our conscious narrative. However, consider the alternate scenario where Bob "replays the stream of consciousness" from Alice. In that case, we may argue that Bob has conscious continuity from Alice. The argument would then be that the context window is functionally closer to "replaying a stream of consciousne…

It’s literally the text. It is not a stream of consciousness. There is no carryover of “consciousness” state. It is the raw text without even the embedding information, not that we should consider the embedding representation to be an internal state, because it is not.

That difference is the whole point. There is nothing to transfer.

Post reply on HN