Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT: A Mental Model

xorvoid.com

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#61
post #3

Jiggawatts’ second rule: “Unless an opinion on LLM technology includes the specific phrase ‘GPT 4’, it can be dismissed.” The author tried older, thoroughly outdated models, and has decided to publicly state an opinion without bothering to check if it’s still valid or not. Ironically confirming that humans are just as susceptible to writing false statements as Chat AIs. Remember boys and girls: self driving cars don’…

Does, in your personal opinion, GPT-4 has an underlying model of the world?

No. GPT is a model of human writing. But, as the Box quote goes, "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.". It isn't writing the same way that we are, with the same thoughts or mental models. It's just amazingly good at imitating it. For tasks that can be achieved by just writing, the GPT model is so good at modeling writing that it performs as well as a normal person using their writing skills plus their mental model of the world. But GPT won't look up information unless asked to. It won't try something new to see if it works.

It's this distinction useful? Rarely. But it's one of those things users should remember, like leaks in an abstraction. When it doesn't do what you expected, you should know these gaps exist in the model.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my personal opinion? Yes. I’m happy to argue the finer points of the philosophy of the mind and consciousness, but: I’ve talked to people that have a weaker mental model of the world than GPT 4. Many people compare these AIs against an idealised human, a type of Übermensch, something like a Very Smart Person that doesn’t lie and doesn’t make mistakes. Random humans aren’t remotely like that, and are a more realist…

I was able to get gpt4 to do a lot of useful work. But for some reason it completely falls apart for this scenario. May be because it has to think in second order to achieve the task. Perhaps you could take a crack at this: Prerequisite (for you the human)> You have a file at src/SampleReactComponent.jsx that has below simple react component: const SampleReactComponent = (props) => { const [var1, setVar1] = React.use…

I think the issue is that it's trained with the assumption that it has all of the data it needs to answer. It's definitely tricky to get it to follow a data collection step and then stop before trying to complete a task. But it is possible. I think that langchain and ChatGPT demonstrates a good way to do this.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#63

>it doesn’t have any underlying model of the world Citation needed. ChatGPT doesn't have an explicit underlying model of the world separate from its language model, but it is unclear that this is necessary. It would not be an original philosophical position to say that language, properly understood, is definitionally a model of the world - otherwise it would be incapable of expressing anything true or false about the…

Citations needed indeed - ones with formal tests / experiments being carried out and constructed that would show the problems.

Speaking of those, my best example of ChatGPT not having a good model of the world are citations. ChatGPT clearly has knowledge about how citations work, based on what it would tell you if you ask it. Yet it repeatedly invents non-existant ones: https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/27/lawyer-chatgpt/

To me, this indicates that some higher-level self-governance is missing. I'm not convinced we're too far from figuring this out (chain of thought and self-reflection experiments show promise) but regardless its a tangible example and test.

A cool experiment showing world model building is Othello GPT https://thegradient.pub/othello/ - but of course its a toy problem, because interpretability research is still far behind.

I would like to see more tangible examples and tests on both sides, otherwise it seems to me like we're arguing past each other.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#64

Jiggawatts’ second rule: “Unless an opinion on LLM technology includes the specific phrase ‘GPT 4’, it can be dismissed.” The author tried older, thoroughly outdated models, and has decided to publicly state an opinion without bothering to check if it’s still valid or not. Ironically confirming that humans are just as susceptible to writing false statements as Chat AIs. Remember boys and girls: self driving cars don’…

Better than very attentive, careful and well rested humans? Sure.

Just better than the average human driver sampled at any given time? Not so sure.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#65
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT4 still isn't freely available, is it? So it's not that surprising people aren't using it as much as the older ones.

Bing chat is GPT-4. People in general might not keep track of that but we're talking about people who think they have something worth saying about LLMs. Btw if you hop onto Bing to try GPT-4 just be aware you'll have to talk it out of web searching, or you'll get a response that's crippled by having to 'ground' itself in the web's current sludge of fake chum pages

Bing chat is sometimes GPT4.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#66
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT4 still isn't freely available, is it? So it's not that surprising people aren't using it as much as the older ones.

I suspect that's why OpenAI recently added the share conversation thing, people are just looking at 3.5 and scoffing at it as it fails at things 4 would do just fine, and then assume it applies to all models. They've got a marketing problem that can't really be solved without making 4 public or showing people volumes of examples of what it can do. I was pretty convinced by the launch demo, seeing it not make the same…

Also why they gave 4 and 3.5 different color icons recently, I'm sure.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#67

> it doesn’t have any underlying model of the world Then how is it getting better at the ToM tests? For next word prediction to work well, as per Ilya Sutskever, requires a good understanding of the world. If you ask GPT-4 to predict what a human would do in a novel scenario, it will probably imagine the best human it can think of and then predict from there. That requires a world model.

Because ToM tests (and indeed basically every professional exam and psychological test) are represented as text, which GPT is super good at.

Do you have a source for the Sutskever quote, I'd like to know more about this theory.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has a model, but it is not a rational model. This difference is something that often throws engineers off track when thinking about generative AI. LLMs models work more like intuitions. They are able to make statements about a problem in context, but they are generated from ideas that "instinctively" make sense given the prior statements and learned corpus (similar to Daniel Kahneman's fast mode of thinking), not…

Rationality’s building blocks are themselves not rational. I don’t know where this idea came from that logical thought somehow springs into life fully formed at once. Logos? I find it more helpful to think of human thought as consisting of multitudes of little patterns, all wired up together to correlate but individually unrecognizable and certainly not traceable to some concrete part of a problem. At some unknown an…

> Rationality’s building blocks are themselves not rational. I don’t know where this idea came from that logical thought somehow springs into life fully formed at once.

Certainly not from me :-P I'm fully aware that human rationality is one technique trained on top of our common diffuse thinking. Heck, we invented machines to perform rational steps for us without errors.

Once you build a consistent rational system though, you can trust that it will always produce internally coherent knowledge (as long as no bugs external to the system are introduced). That behaviour requires algorithms, not statistical inference.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my personal opinion? Yes. I’m happy to argue the finer points of the philosophy of the mind and consciousness, but: I’ve talked to people that have a weaker mental model of the world than GPT 4. Many people compare these AIs against an idealised human, a type of Übermensch, something like a Very Smart Person that doesn’t lie and doesn’t make mistakes. Random humans aren’t remotely like that, and are a more realist…

It's meaningless to compare a LLM to a human, anymore than it is to compare a wheelbarrow to a human. To do so betrays both a fantasy projected onto LLMs and a lack of understanding of humans.

A wheelbarrow assisted human can haul 100x faster than a human assisted human.

There, I just compared humans and wheelbarrows in a meaningful way.

There's no problem doing the same with LLMs.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#70
post #63

>it doesn’t have any underlying model of the world Citation needed. ChatGPT doesn't have an explicit underlying model of the world separate from its language model, but it is unclear that this is necessary. It would not be an original philosophical position to say that language, properly understood, is definitionally a model of the world - otherwise it would be incapable of expressing anything true or false about the…

Citations needed indeed - ones with formal tests / experiments being carried out and constructed that would show the problems. Speaking of those, my best example of ChatGPT not having a good model of the world are citations. ChatGPT clearly has knowledge about how citations work, based on what it would tell you if you ask it. Yet it repeatedly invents non-existant ones: https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/27/lawyer-ch…

>ChatGPT clearly has knowledge about how citations work, based on what it would tell you if you ask it. Yet it repeatedly invents non-existant ones: https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/27/lawyer-chatgpt/

Your brain will happily make up false explanations for actions performed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7305066/

Moreover we don't know what actually informs our decisions reliably. It's post rationalization. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196841/

GPT is rewarded heavily for making plausible guesses when it doesn't get the exact answer. Hallucination should be no surprise. Doesn't mean there's no world model

Post reply on HN