Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by rileymat2 » Thu, Dec 07, 2023, 3:43 PM UTC

alphazard wrote: post #132

rileymat2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn’t it science? Surely people can use the scientific method in investigating?

For starters we don't have a way to measure quality objectively, and this is the case for art in general. If you were to develop an objective measure of beauty for example, visual art as a discipline would quickly turn into a science. At some level we know that's possible, we're all just brains in jars. But AFAIK we aren't doing science there yet. The science and engineering parts all have a measure of quality, somet…

But with prompt escapes and violations of the service expectations, don’t you have an objective criteria?

It gave me X information, yes or no?

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

#192

Post by phkahler » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #144

zamfi wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course we understand how they work, we built them! There is no mystery in their mechanisms, we know the number of neurons, their connectivity, everything from the weights to the activation functions. This is not a mystery, this is several decades of technical developments. The discovery of DNA’s structure was heralded as containing the same explanatory power as you describe here. Turns out, the story was much mo…

> The discovery of DNA’s structure was heralded as containing the same explanatory power as you describe here. Not at all. It's like saying that since we can read hieroglyphics we know all about ancient Egypt. Deciphering DNA is tool to understand biology, it is not that understanding in itself. > Turns out, the story was much more complicated then, and is much more complicated now. We are reverse engineering biology…

>> Exactly in the same way that nobody understand in detail how a complex modern SoC works. Again, there is no magic.

That's absolute BS. Every part of a SoC was designed by a person for a specific function. It's possible for an individual to understand - in detail - large portions of SoC circuitry. How any function of it works could be described in detail down to the transistor level by the design team if needed - without monitoring its behavior.

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

#193

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 10, 2023, 3:08 PM UTC

IanCal wrote: post #187

starbugs wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't start with a statement about clinical trials not being perfectly reproducible and that's fine, then say this. Nobody said that to begin with. Re-read their comment. > If people are lying about an extremely important part of their product [...] Nobody is alleging that anyone is lying. It's just that we cannot be sure what the research actually refers to, because of the nature of a proprietary/closed model.…

> Nobody is alleging that anyone is lying. Let's be clear, you have made an explicit claim that openai are lying. > What does this have to do with the parent comment? Because many other fields would kill for this level of reproducibility, grab an API key, spend a few quid running a script and you can get the results yourself.

[deleted]