21–30 of 40 posts
Not surprising at all. I throw a wall of code at GPT-4, write a paragraph of what i want it to do (I couldn't spend the time to figure out a good solution), and within a minute I had a great functioning solution perfectly integrated into my existing code. The surprising thing is not that it was able to code a good solution, it's that it was able to understand the specifications of how i wanted it to work and how it s…
Wasn’t there a paper on how gpt4 showed signs of early agi? Is this referencing that?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from mAGIc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm using chatgpt regularly. I use ml regularly. I know quite a lot of people doing this also. Why do you think we are at transistor age?
I don't think that people are using them says anything one way or another about what stage this tech is in. Lots of people used transistors on a daily basis in the form of radios and such back when transistors were brand new on the market.
Assuming we're in the "transistor age" implies that things are going to get significantly better, and yet that's a very big assumption, IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is not at the stage of smartphones, it’s at the stages of the early transistor. It will grow because we have the data and the hardware to make it grow. But it appears that human intelligence is on a reverse trend, which is why it’s so easy to sell the idea that ai is intelligent and all of the bad scifi around it.
I'm using chatgpt regularly. I use ml regularly. I know quite a lot of people doing this also. Why do you think we are at transistor age?
Wrong, you are not using chatgpt. You are training chatgpt. You are paying a fee simply because they cant scale yet - there are only that many gpus available - and they had to slow things down a bit but openai gains value in you improving its little bot.
Millions of people training a model and an ever increasing computing power means than in 10-20 years ai will be where computer games are today vs 20-30 years ago.
Hence my analogy to transistors. Ai is not going away but what needs to go away is companies such as openai and bad scifi believing mob.
If anyone has read Blindsight by Peter Watts the hero encounters an alien that is pure reflex, no cognition. The alien is compared to the Chinese room thought experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room ). ChatGTP is the Chinese room. As you peel the onion you discover that some of the arguments around thought are really just semantics. My personal experience shows me that ChatGTP 4 is something of a fool…
You could say 'it is just a fool backed up with a good encyclopedia', but let's be honest, those responses could not come from a fool.
If anyone has read Blindsight by Peter Watts the hero encounters an alien that is pure reflex, no cognition. The alien is compared to the Chinese room thought experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room ). ChatGTP is the Chinese room. As you peel the onion you discover that some of the arguments around thought are really just semantics. My personal experience shows me that ChatGTP 4 is something of a fool…
Maybe you were not impressed by those chatgpt's answers, but I am. There's a lot of shifting goalposts going on when rating AIs responses. You could say 'it is just a fool backed up with a good encyclopedia', but let's be honest, those responses could not come from a fool.
If anyone has read Blindsight by Peter Watts the hero encounters an alien that is pure reflex, no cognition. The alien is compared to the Chinese room thought experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room ). ChatGTP is the Chinese room. As you peel the onion you discover that some of the arguments around thought are really just semantics. My personal experience shows me that ChatGTP 4 is something of a fool…
GPT-4 really does do human-like reasoning. And it's clearly quite general purpose within its limitations.
But it doesn't have many other aspects of humans/animals such as self-direction, high bandwidth senses, a stream of subjective experience, emotions, certain types of adaptivity, etc. It's not alive and it's not a digital person.
But people aren't able to separate all of those different things, so they can't admit that it has any kind of useful intelligence, because for them that means it's a digital person.
Actually it's even dumber, many people jump to assuming that it goes straight to god-like superintelligence if it has any intelligence at all. Which is another reason they can't admit there is any reasoning, because that would mean the end of the world or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is not much to fall for when you can test it for free already. I also watches the writer of the papers talk and it was a good talk. I also saw the progress of ml in the last 5 years and I have never seen something progressing that fast (besides Smartphones perhaps). So it's not far fetched that got 4 is not at the ceiling of doable. The opposite: chatgpt makes it much easier to get funding, the race is on
AI is not at the stage of smartphones, it’s at the stages of the early transistor. It will grow because we have the data and the hardware to make it grow. But it appears that human intelligence is on a reverse trend, which is why it’s so easy to sell the idea that ai is intelligent and all of the bad scifi around it.