241–250 of 641 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were not "just a statistical next token machine", how different would it behave? Can you find an example and test it out?
How do non-LLM based World Models behave?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hey ChatGPT. I'm building a Final Fantasy 6 mod, and I need more space for the battle scripts. How would I rearrange the data in the ROM to give me the extra space I need?" https://chatgpt.com/share/69d6a16c-6014-83e8-a79d-d5d11ed2eb... That is not where the battle scripts are. --- Anyway, it's trivial to get pretty much any model to make things up. Don't we all know this? That's why I was surprised by your position…
https://chatgpt.com/share/69d6a38c-bd54-838c-82e3-609d9e66c9... I used the thinking version (like I asked before). I think this is right. If not, please tell. Also; you didn’t falsify anything. Nor the first. Nor the second. If the second one is bullshit, I accept I’m wrong - I have no idea how to verify though so I’ll leave it up to you. I think yours is the classic case of “use the free version to judge the paid on…
- it searches the internet to find the answer, it doesn't "reason". I'm not claiming Google is a bullshit machine, and it's not surprising the answer is discoverable (it has to be, for the conditions of our experiment).
- near the end it says "If you are building from the FF6 disassembly instead of hand-editing the ROM, the repo is already organized into separate modules and linker configs, so the clean approach is to relocate the script data in the source and let the build place it in a different ROM region." But I didn't reference a repo or git: it hallucinated that stuff from one of its sources.
I'm not saying this stuff doesn't have its place, but they definitely make things up and we can't stop them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. This is the crux of munificent's argument IMO (and I've made variations of it as well) > We have copyright and intellecual property law already, of course, but those were designed presuming a human might try to profit from the intellectual labor of others. You getting a summary of a copyrighted work from a friend is necessarily limited by the number of friends you have, the amount of time th…
Yes, true. But does that really shift the argument much? An AI is like the most well-read book nerd you’ve ever met. The AI has read everything. They still won’t recite Harry Potter for you at full length and reading what the original author wrote is part of the pleasure.
But no real book nerd has read everything. Current law was designed for the capabilities of humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some people point at LLMs confabulating, as if this wasn’t something humans are already widely known for doing. I think we need to start rejecting anthropomorphic statements like this out of hand. They are lazy, typically wrong, and are always delivered as a dismissive defense of LLM failure modes. Anything can be anthropomorphized, and it's always problematic to do so - that's why the word exists. This rhetorical…
>this LLM behavior can be analogized in terms of some human behavior, thus it follows that LLMs are human-like No, the argument is "this behavior is similar enough to human behavior that using it as evidence against is specious" >"Confabulation" in LLMs and "confabulation" in humans have basically nothing in common I don't know why you think this. They seem to have a lot in common. I call it sensible nonsense. Humans…
I'm not really following. LLM capabilities are self-evident, comparing them to a human doesn't add any useful information in that context.
> LLMs are characterized by a lack of self-reflective information. When critical input is missing, the algorithm will craft a narrative around the available, but insufficient information resulting in sensible nonsense (e.g. neural disorders such as somatoparaphrenia)
You're just drawing lines between superficial descriptions from disparate concepts that have a metaphorical overlap. It's also wrong. LLMs do not "craft a narrative around available information when critical input is missing", LLM confabulations are statistical, not a consequence of missing information or damage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, totally! I still write and put stuff online. But it definitely feels different now. It used to feel like I was tending a public garden filled with other people who might enjoy it. It still kind of feels like that, but there are a handful of giant combine machines grinding their way around the garden harvesting stuff and making billionaires richer at the same time. It's not enough to dissuade me from contribut…
I can totally see that, for sure. I was much more likely to write a review long ago, now I don't even bother. (For buying stuff online, at least.) Maybe I lost my innocence about this stuff a long time ago, and so it's not so much LLMs that broke it for me, but maybe... I dunno, the downfall of Web 2.0 and the death of RSS? I do think that the old internet, for some definition of "old," felt different. For sure. I'll…
That was always a luxury of its peculiar historical moment, though, wasn't it? Barlow didn't have to care who paid for the infrastructure, but he was just bloviating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://chatgpt.com/share/69d6a38c-bd54-838c-82e3-609d9e66c9... I used the thinking version (like I asked before). I think this is right. If not, please tell. Also; you didn’t falsify anything. Nor the first. Nor the second. If the second one is bullshit, I accept I’m wrong - I have no idea how to verify though so I’ll leave it up to you. I think yours is the classic case of “use the free version to judge the paid on…
The thinking version is mostly right, but: - it searches the internet to find the answer, it doesn't "reason". I'm not claiming Google is a bullshit machine, and it's not surprising the answer is discoverable (it has to be, for the conditions of our experiment). - near the end it says "If you are building from the FF6 disassembly instead of hand-editing the ROM, the repo is already organized into separate modules and…
In any case - it should be clear that it did not bullshit and it got it right. So far you have not come up with anything that tells me it bullshits. I'm happy for you to give me more prompts to verify because I think you haven't used the thinking version yet and you base your criticism on the free version.
I think it's too early to declare the Turing test passed. You just need to have a conversation long enough to exhaust the context window. Less than that, since response quality degrades long before you hit hard window limits. Even with compaction. Neuroplasticity is hard to simulate in a few hundred thousand tokens.
Given these conditions, it should be relatively easy for the interrogator to expose the AI in this current day and age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, I see. It’s just straightforward protectionism like dockworkers opposing automation and so on. That I do comprehend, in fact. I write software too and I may no longer be able to just do it in the old way. Pretty scary world but also exciting. I can’t imagine trying to restrict LLM software writers on that basis but I can comprehend it as simply self-interest. Fair enough.
Do you make money writing software? I bet you either try to restrict LLM usage or assign your rights to an employer who does. Putting code in the public domain is pretty rare, and extremely rare for paid work.
And I do paste code into CC. I’m not super concerned that they’ll see it.
That’s fine by me. It doesn’t require putting code in the public domain which is something else entirely.
I make money off hosted software so in some sense there is writing involved at one end. But I’m not paid by output tokens.
In such cases we always try to find a phrase from the article itself which expresses what it's saying in a representative way. (There nearly always is one.) In this case, both the very first and very last sentences do this, and it's interesting that they more or less agree. So I plucked the last sentence and put it above.
Edit: oof, I missed that this is actually the first part of a long series. Not sure what we'll do about the others; I expect some of those will make the frontpage as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you know, I deeply respect you. Not trying to argue here, just provide my own perspective: > Why would a writer put an article online if ChatGPT will slurp it up and regurgitate it back to users without anyone ever even finding the original article? I write things for two main reasons: I feel like I have to. I need to create things. On some level, I would write stuff down even if nobody reads it (and I do do that…
Agreed, totally! I still write and put stuff online. But it definitely feels different now. It used to feel like I was tending a public garden filled with other people who might enjoy it. It still kind of feels like that, but there are a handful of giant combine machines grinding their way around the garden harvesting stuff and making billionaires richer at the same time. It's not enough to dissuade me from contribut…
The Internet-circulating quote comes to mind: Planet Earth is pretty much a vacation resort for around 500 rich people, and the remaining 8 billion of us are just their staff. The Relative Few have got the system set up perfectly so that whatever we do, we're probably serving/enriching them. AI doesn't really change this, but it does further it.