181–190 of 497 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't even have to look that far ahead. Apparently, people are already using ChatGPT to compile custom diet plans for themselves, and they expect it to take into account the information they supply regarding their allergies etc. But, yes, those are also good examples of what we shouldn't be doing, but are going to do anyway.
Those cases sound like Darwin Awards mediated by high technology
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no evidence that intelligence runs on neurons. Yes, there are neurons in brains, but there's also lots of other stuff in there too. And there are creatures that exhibit intelligent properties even though they have hardly any neurons at all. (An individual ant has only something like 250000 neurons, and yet they're the only creatures beside humans that managed to create a civilization.)
This is not a good take. Yes there is a lot more going on in brains than just neuronal activity, we don’t understand most of it. But understanding neurons and their connections is necessary (but not sufficient) to understanding what we consider intelligence. Also, 250k is a lot of neurons! Individual ants, as well as fruit flies which have even fewer neurons, show behavior we may consider intelligent. Source: I am no…
Perhaps intelligence is like a black box input to our bodies (call it the "soul", even though this isn't testable and therefore not a hypothesis). The mind therefore wouldn't play any more of a role in intelligence than the eye. And I'm not sure people would say the eye is necessary for understanding intelligence.
Now, I'm not really in a position to argue for such a thing, even if I believe it, but I'm curious what argument you might have against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know that complex arrangements of neurons are triggered based on input and generating output that appears to have some intelligence to many humans. The more interesting question is why are intelligence/beauty/consciousness emergent properties that exist in our minds.
There is no evidence that intelligence runs on neurons. Yes, there are neurons in brains, but there's also lots of other stuff in there too. And there are creatures that exhibit intelligent properties even though they have hardly any neurons at all. (An individual ant has only something like 250000 neurons, and yet they're the only creatures beside humans that managed to create a civilization.)
To me the value here is not that GPT4 has some special insight into explaining the behavior of GPT2 neurons (they say it's comparable to "human contractors" - but human performance on this task is also quite poor). The value is that you can just run this on every neuron if you're willing to spend the compute, and having a very fuzzy, flawed map of every neuron in a model is still pretty useful as a research tool. But…
They also mention they got a score above 0.8 for 1000 neurons out of GPT2 (which has 1.5B (?)).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way a civilization?
I'll repost a comment via Reddit that I think makes this case [0]: Ants have developed architecture, with plumbing, ventilation, nurseries for rearing the young, and paved thoroughfares. Ants practice agriculture, including animal husbandry. Ants have social stratification that differs from but is comparable to that of human cultures, with division of labor into worker, soldier, and other specialties that do not have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll repost a comment via Reddit that I think makes this case [0]: Ants have developed architecture, with plumbing, ventilation, nurseries for rearing the young, and paved thoroughfares. Ants practice agriculture, including animal husbandry. Ants have social stratification that differs from but is comparable to that of human cultures, with division of labor into worker, soldier, and other specialties that do not have…
To be honest, this description is leaning heavily on the associations we have with individual words used. Ant "architecture" isn't like our architecture. Ant "plumbing" and "ventilation" have little in common with the kind of plumbing and ventilation we use in buildings. "Nurseries", "rearing the young", that's just stretching the analogy to the point of breaking. "Agriculture", "animal husbandry" - I don't even know…
They're saying they accomplish incredible things for the size of their brain, which is absolutely and unequivocally true.
"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll repost a comment via Reddit that I think makes this case [0]: Ants have developed architecture, with plumbing, ventilation, nurseries for rearing the young, and paved thoroughfares. Ants practice agriculture, including animal husbandry. Ants have social stratification that differs from but is comparable to that of human cultures, with division of labor into worker, soldier, and other specialties that do not have…
To be honest, this description is leaning heavily on the associations we have with individual words used. Ant "architecture" isn't like our architecture. Ant "plumbing" and "ventilation" have little in common with the kind of plumbing and ventilation we use in buildings. "Nurseries", "rearing the young", that's just stretching the analogy to the point of breaking. "Agriculture", "animal husbandry" - I don't even know…
Interesting parallell with intelligence/sentience/sapience. Despite the means, isn't the end result what you have to judge? The end result looks like a rudimentary civilization. How much back in time would we have to go back to find more sophistication in ant societies than humans?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know that complex arrangements of neurons are triggered based on input and generating output that appears to have some intelligence to many humans. The more interesting question is why are intelligence/beauty/consciousness emergent properties that exist in our minds.
Nature created humans to understand nature. We created GPT4 to understand ourselves.
Humans so far have done a great job at destroying nature faster than any other kind could.
And GPT4 was created for profit.
Of note: "... our technique works poorly for larger models, possibly because later layers are harder to explain." And even for GPT-2, which is what they used for the paper: "... the vast majority of our explanations score poorly ..." Which is to say, we still have no clue as to what's going on inside GPT-4 or even GPT-3, which I think is the question many want an answer to. This may be the first step towards that, bu…