Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 193 posts

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#81

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

ableal wrote: post #17
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #5

Attacking the participants in a systemic shift is 100% useless as it doesn't target the culprit. In programming we have a similar phenomenon, that StackOverflow-driven (and I guess now GPT-driven) juniors have overtaken the industry and displaced serious talent. Because sufficient amounts of quantity always beats quality, even if the end result is inferior, this is caused by market dynamics, which operate on much cru…

> Because sufficient amounts of quantity always beats quality Hegel (as echoed by Marx): "merely quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes" ( https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.240462397 ) I always found that an interesting observation, whatever you think of the rest of their works.

It's an absolutely valid observation and I cite it often. We need to learn as a society how to separate things and think less wholesale.

The best people have silly beliefs, the worst people have great insights, and the vast majority of us are in-between.

If we discard everything "tainted" by imperfection, we'll be left with nothing good.

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#82

Post by eimrine »

wavemode wrote: post #77
eimrine wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is incorrect in this reference? You have not proposed any counterarguments. Also if you need just more fresh data - how do you propose to interpret the result of the Rosenhan's experiment?

That lying about your symptoms to doctors leads to incorrect diagnoses?

They are _not_ doctors in terms of evidence-based medicine, just policemen without a token. The problem is obviously not about incorrect diagnosis, I can lie to any doctor about any symptoms and just go home with zero obstructions from feds.

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#83

Post by rib3ye »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #22

Excuse me? Step by step wasn't paper-worthy? Hard disagree. LLM research is currently in its infancy, because they are no older than a few years old. And a research field in its infancy is bound to have a few noteworthy "no sh*t, Sherlock" papers that would be obvious from hindsight. The fact is, LLMs are a higher-order construct in machine learning, much like a fish is higher-order than a simple cellular colony. Low…

Sorry, ignoramus here: Which paper is “Step by step”?

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#84

Post by eimrine »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #75
eimrine wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychology is a religious-like pseudoscience, they can not even define what "psy" is without using some conceptions from religions such as a soul. upd these statements from me are so controversial, the number of "points" just dances lambada. The psy* areas are clearly polarized: some guys upvote all my messages in this topic and some other ones downvote all my messages in this topic. This is a sign of something inter…

Dude if you think φύσις is free of its own philosophical baggage I got a bridge to sell you.

> its own philosophical baggage

Could you elaborate on this statement?

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#85

Post by ilc »

jhbadger wrote: post #58
ilc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole thing reminds me a bit of playing Fallout 4. There will be good data, the pre-AI enshitification data. The stuff from before the war. And then... the data after. Tainted by the entropy, and lack of utility of AI. Alas, this means in some senses, human progress will slow and stop in the tech field if we aren't careful and preserve ways to create pre-AI data. But the cost of it is so high in comparison to po…

This paints a rosy picture of human-generated data now. It's not as if most human data is reliable. Even among peer reviewed scientific literature, most of it is crap and it takes effort to find the good stuff. Also, your analogy kind of misses the point of the Fallout games. The pre-war world was awful, filled with evil corporations like Vault-tech and Nuka Cola that murdered and poisoned their customers, and the po…

There is a reason I didn't draw a hard parallel.

I use AI day to day. I see what it can do and can't.

But when you see pages, and pages, and pages of GPT spam all over the place. Finding the nuggets of wisdom will be much harder than before, the "bomb" was dropped.

Thus actually leading to the whole FO4 main plot.

Yes, life will always find a way. And yes humanity can not put the genie in a bottle, we are much more likely to put it on a Fat Man catapult.

But it means, that in a sense... that we will all have to accept this background radiation of AI shit, as part of our new norm.

And this isn't the first time I've thought in similar ways. I remember reading older math texts (way pre-computer works in things like diffeq and PDE) and often thinking the explanations were clearer. Probably because of the increased effort to actually print something.

Who knows... maybe I'm just an old coot seeing patterns where there are none.

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#86

Post by Woshiwuja »

eimrine wrote: post #61
Woshiwuja wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Are you literally referring to ancient greek psy? jesus...

What is incorrect in this reference? You have not proposed any counterarguments. Also if you need just more fresh data - how do you propose to interpret the result of the Rosenhan's experiment?

Dont put people inside mental asylums when they are not ill?

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#87

Post by renonce »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #22

Excuse me? Step by step wasn't paper-worthy? Hard disagree. LLM research is currently in its infancy, because they are no older than a few years old. And a research field in its infancy is bound to have a few noteworthy "no sh*t, Sherlock" papers that would be obvious from hindsight. The fact is, LLMs are a higher-order construct in machine learning, much like a fish is higher-order than a simple cellular colony. Low…

I would say rather than saying that a new prompt is not science, it’s certainly a new discovery that is worth sharing. Maybe there should be a higher bar for papers, but why we have to make a discovery a paper - and not publish it at all if it cannot be made one - when a simple blog post or a tweet would convey the discovery very well?

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#88

Post by samlhuillier »

Times are changing. Human researchers will dedicate more and more time towards getting language models to work in desired ways rather than doing the research themselves. Language models will largely be the ones making "research" discoveries. Both should be considered valid research IMO.

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#89

Post by WhitneyLand »

Should this be a paper?

https://not-just-memorization.github.io/extracting-training-...

There is supporting analysis and measurement, but the essence is a single type of prompt, and DeepMind is a heavyweight lab I think it’s fair to say.

Moreover there’s evidence people independently reported this result months beforehand on Reddit based on casual observation.

Re: Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper

#90

Post by lumost »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #22

Excuse me? Step by step wasn't paper-worthy? Hard disagree. LLM research is currently in its infancy, because they are no older than a few years old. And a research field in its infancy is bound to have a few noteworthy "no sh*t, Sherlock" papers that would be obvious from hindsight. The fact is, LLMs are a higher-order construct in machine learning, much like a fish is higher-order than a simple cellular colony. Low…

Anecdotally,

The field of ML suffered from a problem where there were more entrants to the field than available positions/viable work. In many industrial positions, it was possible to hide a lack of progress behind ambiguity and/or poor metrics. This lead to a large amount of gate keeping for productive work as ultimately there wasn't enough to go around in the typical case.

This attitude is somewhat pervasive leading to blogs like the above. Granted, the Nth prompting paper probably isn't interesting - but new programming languages for prompts and prompt discovery techniques are very exciting. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that automatic prompt expansion using a small pre-processing model turns out to be an effective technique.

Post reply on HN