211–220 of 288 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Said teacher is one person in a large crowd of people that are now using ChatGPT as a modern-day quiver of divining arrows. I am not hopeful for the future if people are so ready to give up their own thinking to machines, who may develop emergent motives.
Also a symptom of a broken society, isn't it? It's crazy all the "increase your productivity by 10 with GPT" tutorials on the web
FYI, the reddit thread has someone claiming to do what I was thinking of doing -- submitting the professor's email to chatgpt to ask if the text itself is chatgpt's: https://imgur.com/a/NrwpZfh
Asking a model whose job it is to generate the words which most often follow the sentence "did you make this?" is not one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s wrong with the word “know”? And with Eliezer Yudkowsky?
He's a self-appointed expert who is neither an AI researcher, computer scientist, or any other accredited title you'd expect someone loudly yelling, “WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE” on a technical topic like the fundamentals of AI and its dangers to hold. You and others continue to foist human qualities on LLMs because it looks like magic. To know is to know oneself. LLMs do not know themselves. In fact, there is no “self” t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that "understanding" something means that you have a mental model of that thing. The more accurate and complete that mental model is, the "deeper" the understanding. LLMs, as I (ahem) understand them, do not have models of the things they're writing about. They do have a model of language (or whatever symbolic system they were trained on), but that's where it ends.
If it had no model of what it was writing about it wouldn’t be able to write anything coherent. It obviously has a world model, it’s not as advanced as what a human has but it’s there
When I asked ChatGPT "Does ChatGPT have a world model?", I got this output:
"ChatGPT, like other GPT models, does not possess an explicit world model. GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) models, such as ChatGPT, are trained on a large corpus of text data from the internet and do not have direct access to real-time information about the world. They rely solely on the patterns and information they have learned from their training data.
While GPT models can generate contextually relevant and coherent responses based on their training, they do not possess up-to-date knowledge or awareness of current events. Their responses are primarily based on patterns, associations, and statistical regularities present in the text they were trained on, rather than an explicit representation of the world.
It's important to note that GPT models can occasionally generate plausible-sounding but inaccurate or misleading information, especially when prompted with questions or topics beyond the scope of their training data. Therefore, it's always advisable to verify information from reliable sources when seeking accurate and up-to-date information about the world."
When I asked it "Does a large language model infer an understanding of a topic?", it gave this output:
"A large language model, such as ChatGPT, can exhibit the appearance of understanding a topic due to its ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant responses. It can make inferences based on patterns and associations learned from its training data, which allows it to generate text that appears knowledgeable about a particular subject.
However, it's crucial to understand that this understanding is derived solely from statistical patterns present in the training data, and the model does not possess true comprehension or conceptual understanding like humans do. The model does not have access to real-world experiences, common sense, or the ability to reason in the same way as humans.
The responses generated by a language model should be interpreted as a combination of learned patterns and statistical associations rather than as genuine understanding. The model lacks the ability to deeply grasp the meaning, implications, or nuances of a topic beyond what it has learned from the text it was trained on. Therefore, it's essential to approach the responses generated by a language model critically and corroborate information from reliable sources when necessary."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that "understanding" something means that you have a mental model of that thing. The more accurate and complete that mental model is, the "deeper" the understanding. LLMs, as I (ahem) understand them, do not have models of the things they're writing about. They do have a model of language (or whatever symbolic system they were trained on), but that's where it ends.
If it had no model of what it was writing about it wouldn’t be able to write anything coherent. It obviously has a world model, it’s not as advanced as what a human has but it’s there
It has a model of the structure of writing on the internet. It can produce text that adheres to that model. That's all that's required for coherent writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's a self-appointed expert who is neither an AI researcher, computer scientist, or any other accredited title you'd expect someone loudly yelling, “WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE” on a technical topic like the fundamentals of AI and its dangers to hold. You and others continue to foist human qualities on LLMs because it looks like magic. To know is to know oneself. LLMs do not know themselves. In fact, there is no “self” t…
I think it's still debatable if there are any AI researchers at all because ML is not AI by a long shot. Also I think he considers himself more of an AI philosopher than a "researcher" anyway, and that, in my opinion, gives his words as much weight as any others'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was reading that X as a variable, not a particular grade. As in, your grade is X, where X can be A, B, C, D, or F.
Yeah, College grades for transcripts are a bit different in that you typically will have the standard range (A-F), but then you have other "status" grades. The ones I know of are: P: Pass (no actual grade, just pass or fail for some classes) F: Fail (no actual grade, just pass or fail for some classes) I: Incomplete (usually a medical or family related emergency) N: Delayed (usually for internships where you get feed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who was a student over a decade ago, I'd lose my fucking mind if I had to use physical books. There was simply not enough time to go get books off the shelf and complete all my assignments. Everything was done digitally, I can't think of a single exception in college. I once turned in a math exam written using LaTeX and the professor initially declined to grade it. I did concede that I hadn't followed the…
Huh what major were you? As a math major we used exclusively physical books and it was fine. There was one time that the professor wanted us to use a theorem in a homework assignment from a book he neglected to assign to us for the class. The entire class collaborated on that problem set and emailed him for help, and he admitted he'd made a mistake and lent us a copy of the book. That was probably the biggest can't-u…
the specific exam I am referring to indicated hand written as a requirement. It's also unlikely that the prof. failing me would have survived the scrutiny of the administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's a self-appointed expert who is neither an AI researcher, computer scientist, or any other accredited title you'd expect someone loudly yelling, “WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE” on a technical topic like the fundamentals of AI and its dangers to hold. You and others continue to foist human qualities on LLMs because it looks like magic. To know is to know oneself. LLMs do not know themselves. In fact, there is no “self” t…
I don’t know much about him but I thought he was a researcher? There is an “Academic publications” section on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky and it says “He is a co-founder and research fellow at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute” LLMs are not self aware, I agree, but there is clearly some reasoning going on and you could argue that its model of human behaviour can somewhat simulate self…
What model of human behaviour? I asked ChatGPT if it has a model of human behaviour, and it said "ChatGPT does not have an explicit model of human behavior".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite comparison has always been a basic working knowledge of how we go around in a kitchen. We need to know what an oven is, and what a refrigerator is, where the knives are and where the dishes, and what each of these tools are for and how they basically work and how to use them. In computing, we've had a strong trend towards the "magic cupboard", which "just knows" for you what is needed. No need to know wha…
> No need to know what's in the kitchen and how stuff works, this would be too much for your brain. Open the cupboard once and it's the oven, open it another time, there's your knife, open it yet another time and accidentally throw your freshly baked cake in the waste bin… What's wild about that trend is that if you watch low-ability computer users interact with that crap, it confuses the absolute shit out of them. A…
On a historical note, the Xerox Star did a great job in making clear that there are just lists: a menu is just a view on a list, just like an array of buttons, which is yet another view on the same thing, as is a property sheet, even an object is just a list of properties – operating the computer is navigating lists and there is couple of useful presentations (you can even switch them). And classic Mac OS did a great job in making functional associations accessible.
[Edit] In a sense, AI chat-bots are the final step in the evolution of not knowing how: a single entry point to summon what ever it may be that magic will provide for. And we won't know what this "whatever" may actually be, because – as an average person – we're perfectly shielded from the working principles. (That is, maybe the penultimate step: really, it should be your smart watch detecting what is that you want and there is no need to prompt or to articulate.)