51–60 of 83 posts
What fraction of people using AI are looking up opinions on themselves? While I'm sure someone has written a completely automated horoscope generator, in general I think these LLMs are being applied in situations where there would be no Forer Effect.
Clearly the answer to the title is "basically none".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me make this very clear: Generating syntactically correct code in various languages that also looks plausible is no small feat. It is, in fact, extremely impressive and will certainly have an impact on SE. But. Every single test I ran lead to functionally wrong designs from smallish memory errors in C (that hilariously ChatGPT was able to correct ND explain when pointed to) over misplaced/hallucinated methods in…
As a counterpoint, I am absolutely horrible at writing Bash but I used ChatGPT to write a fairly complex (~50 lines, multiple functions) script in Bash that works just dandy. It wasn't perfect , and I made a couple adjustments, but it was 100x faster than what I could have done without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not really an issue when we’re talking about AI. I said in a separate comment on the topic: intelligence is such a complicated thing that we seem to only be able to define it by pointing to things and saying “that’s not it.” If we didn’t move the goalposts, we’d have declared Stockfish to be full AI, despite it only being a chess-playing program, long ago.
We agreed on a definition of artificial intelligence--the Turing test--for 50 years. The goalpost was clearly established, widely agreed upon, and promptly abandoned when chatbots blew past it. I'm convinced that when the dust has settled and historians look back to decide on THE point in time at which we achieved AI or even AGI, that time will not be in the future, but in the past.
As a child, I would read the horoscope of the day with the wrong sign for mother and her female friends and they always thought it was talking about them and I never had the courage to tell them I switched as a joke. I keep imagining a fine tuned GPT for insights from the "mystic realm".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, please. Do not use LLMs as a substitute for Google search. If you are looking for factual information, just use google, bing, or duckduckgo. You should only use ChatGPT for things that you are able to review it's work. Technology is supposed to make us smarter. Blindly believing an AI that we know can hallucinate makes us dumb with confidence.
> You should only use ChatGPT for things that you are able to review it's work. This keeps being my argument when people at work daydream about time and cost savings by offloading non-critical business functions to AI. I say, "Great, so it can produce 1000x more work than a person. But then what army of people are we planning to use to check those outputs?" I'm super-impressed with the current crop of language models…
Have you ever had a dumb/wrong thought in your head? I'm going to go ahead and answer yes for you, you do all the time. In fact you don't (hopefully) verbalize a stream of consciousness to other people around you. In general you think of something then reflect on what it is true/false.
This is not what LLMs do, they pitch back the first 'thought' they have, "correct" or not. This is why things like COT/TOT greatly increase the accuracy of LLM output. The problem? It requires at least an order of magnitude more processing to get an answer, and with GPU time already in high demand and expensive you don't see much of it happen.
Betting on LLMs commonly being wrong is not a safe bet at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not really an issue when we’re talking about AI. I said in a separate comment on the topic: intelligence is such a complicated thing that we seem to only be able to define it by pointing to things and saying “that’s not it.” If we didn’t move the goalposts, we’d have declared Stockfish to be full AI, despite it only being a chess-playing program, long ago.
We agreed on a definition of artificial intelligence--the Turing test--for 50 years. The goalpost was clearly established, widely agreed upon, and promptly abandoned when chatbots blew past it. I'm convinced that when the dust has settled and historians look back to decide on THE point in time at which we achieved AI or even AGI, that time will not be in the future, but in the past.
No, we didn’t. There was plenty of disagreement over it. Heck, the Chinese Room is very popular rejection fundamentally of the premise of it.
That aside, even if in a blind scenario (where the builders didn’t know the criteria used to test) being able to fool humans in linguistic interaction would be reasonably likely to be a good test of general intelligence, LLM’s are about as an obvious of a direct and deliberate attempt to Goodhart’s Law the Turing Test as one could imagine.
Using a particular capacity to test a more general capacity is obviously vulnerable to systems built to specialize in the tested capacity, as opposed to those that have it as a consequence of general ability.
I agree with the other comments that this is a fairly useless article. Perhaps I’m looking too much into this specific example, but I fail to see how the entirety of AI’s success (per this title) is misrepresented due to its inability to provide a horoscope (good example by another comment) that’s specific to some person in question. We see a lot of articles that swing too far towards “AI will change everything!” jus…
> I fail to see how the entirety of AI’s success (per this title) is misrepresented The title does not claim that the "entirety" of AI's success is misrepresented. It is questioning "how much" is, and I think that this is a fair question. The author does admit that the first paragraph in the example does have valid information which shows the AI with knowledge. It's the second paragraph that is just fluff. I think th…
Of raw single prompt output of GPT-X?
Of chain of thought output of the best latest model?
Of tree of thought of the best latest model + plugins and other models for different opinions?
I agree with the other comments that this is a fairly useless article. Perhaps I’m looking too much into this specific example, but I fail to see how the entirety of AI’s success (per this title) is misrepresented due to its inability to provide a horoscope (good example by another comment) that’s specific to some person in question. We see a lot of articles that swing too far towards “AI will change everything!” jus…
> my favorite is generating and explaining code snippets for languages/libraries I’m not familiar with. For me this is one of the more dangerous uses. Humans are already pretty bad at detecting errors in code. Bertrand Meyer, an expert with some renown in formal methods, couldn’t find an error in a one-liner of Eiffel code generated by ChatGPT. What hope do programmers with less training have to recognize when ChatGP…
I work in the code security industry, and there is one truism, that is people typically write code until it compiles and or doesn't return an immediate error, they do not write code until it is 'correct'.