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

I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 235 posts

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#101

Post by jjoonathan »

marcodiego wrote: post #91

I fear the day AI will give superhuman consistent correct answers and nobody will be able to determine why it is right or how the correct answer was found. Maybe someday we'll get an answer from a machine which superhumanly mostly correct and we'll be unable to tell if it is right or wrong. If it is a question whose answer will influence important decisions, considering the machine answer will be close to a form of r…

Like religion, I suspect you will have many different machine answers to choose from.

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#102

Post by pwdisswordfish0 »

throwanem wrote: post #97
schleck8 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried this with the new open source GPT NeoX 20B model on GooseAI playground and it suceeded too: Q: Can here you here still here understand here what here I here am here asking here if here I here put here words here in here between? A: Yes. Q: What was the word that I put in between? A: The word was "here." It's capable of other languages as well, although not quite as fluent. Q: Kannst du auch Deutsch sprechen?…

This makes me wonder about a variant of the Turing test that I don't think I've seen explored. How would a conversational AI prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is an AI?

You mean that it is intelligent? Surely it’s trivial to prove you’re a computer by solving some math real fast.

“Can you prove you’re a machine?” – “Sure, check this out:” runs Doom

The intelligent part would be figuring out that you want it to drop the pretense. Although if it is intelligent enough, it might choose not to.

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#103

Post by marcodiego »

supermdguy wrote: post #96
marcodiego wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scary. If it improves a bit more, people will start questioning if the machine has soul or rights.

It's interesting, in the forums for the beta program there have been already been a few people making posts where they're convinced that the AI is conscious. That's never really been something I've thought about much since I know a little about how it works, but I could totally see how someone who didn't have as much context for how GPT-3 works could see it as some sort of sentience. https://community.openai.com/t/a-…

Long time ago I wrote a small program. It simulated a simple world with creatures and food. Creatures had "energy" which was lost when they moved, when energy was low, they "looked for food close by" to feed. When energy was high, they "looked for a suitable partner close by" to reproduce. When they reached food, they gained energy, when they reached a "suitable partner" they turned in 3 creatures with combined energy equally distributed among them.

To "look for", at each iteration, the creature randomly picked a test-target. If it had no current-target, the test-target was turned into its new current-target. If it had a current-target which was more distant than the test-target, then the test-target was copied to the current-target for the creature.

Creatures had a "threshold". When its energy was above the threshold, it entered "reproduction mode"; when its energy was below the threshold, it entered feed mode. A "suitable partner" was any other creature which was also in "reproduction mode". When they "reproduced" the new creature threshold was an average of the threshold of its parents plus a small random number.

It also had three settings: number of new generated creatures per unit of time, number of new food packs per unit of time and number of iterations per unit of time.

It had a very "real behavior". After a few minutes running, I usually set the "number of new generated creatures per unit of time" to 0 and watched creatures look for food and reproduction. Set a small number of food packs and watched famine, set it high and saw creatures thrive...

But, whenever it was the time to close the program, I had a small feeling. I didn't like stopping it. It was like killing an entire fishbowl.

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#104

Post by gradys »

d--b wrote: post #24

What? You think this is poor performance? This totally blows my mind. I would never have guessed that GPT could get ANY of these right. I mean, is there a data point in the dataset used to train where you can read 2241 + 19873 = 22114? Quite unlikely... And those multiplications. It's consistently getting the number of digits right and the first two numbers correct. How the hell does this happen? Sure, it's sometimes…

You might like the paper "Do NLP Models Know Numbers? Probing Numeracy in Embeddings": https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.07940

Neural network models seem to encode an approximate notion of quantity in their representations. This paper is pre-GPT-3, but I would think the larger training set and larger model capacity would help the model learn quantity more easily.

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#105

Post by mannykannot »

vbuterin wrote: post #79
mordymoop wrote: post #65

When you toss “2241 + 19873 =” into an applet that shows you the default tokenization scheme GPT-3 uses, you get this: (224)(1)( +)( 198)(73)( =) I’ve heard it remarked before that, while tokenization is obviously an unavoidable part of a model with an architecture like GPT, this is a very silly way of tokenizing number strings for the purposes of learning or doing arithmetic. Indeed, I think a lot of GPT-3’s puzzlin…

When I do mental arithmetic my brain frequently tokenizes into digit pairs or triples if I can recognize pairs and triples that have specific properties. "224" is actually a really nice object to recognize because it's 7 * 32, and if you can recognize other multiples of 32 it frequently gives you shortcuts. It's less useful for addition because you would need to get lucky and get a multiple of 32 (or 7) on both sides…

maybe this is a clue to which ones it succeeds on, and how it goes wrong when it does not.

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#106

Post by jquery »

marcodiego wrote: post #92
tehsauce wrote: post #84

The latest version of gpt-3 spooked me the other day with: Me: Can here you here still here understand here what here I here am here asking here if here I here put here words here in here between? Gpt: Yes, I can understand what you are asking if you put words in between. Me: What was the word that I put in between? Gpt: The word that you put in between is "here."

Scary. If it improves a bit more, people will start questioning if the machine has soul or rights.

Imho, not a matter of "if" but "when". I'm convinced that it will be a future civil rights battle, with young people largely on the "AI has rights" side and old people largely on the "AI has no rights" side.

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#107

Post by [deleted] »

wildmanx wrote: post #64
Robin_Message wrote: post #32

It seems to me that carries are where this trips up. Which is weirdly human. I wonder if there are enough examples to learn each digit pair addition or subtraction, but not enough to learn every contextual action.

Not really "human". Doing no-carry addition is much easier for a machine to do as well, as that's basically what XOR does, i.e., SIMD. Carry introduces dependencies between the digits, potentially as long as the whole string goes. So that's pretty hard to understand, also for a machine.

[deleted]

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#108

Post by defaultprimate »

jquery wrote: post #106
marcodiego wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scary. If it improves a bit more, people will start questioning if the machine has soul or rights.

Imho, not a matter of "if" but "when". I'm convinced that it will be a future civil rights battle, with young people largely on the "AI has rights" side and old people largely on the "AI has no rights" side.

Then you grossly misunderstand how far along AI is. AGI is not even a remote possibility with current techniques and implementations (and I would contest, entirely impossible with digital logic). It's just massive amount of statistics that were computationally impossible given available hardware until recently.

We don't have a baseline understanding of consciousness or intuition to a degree that we could even begin to replicate it.

Re: I asked GPT-NeoX-20B a hundred arithmetic questions

#110

Post by throwanem »

pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #102
throwanem wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me wonder about a variant of the Turing test that I don't think I've seen explored. How would a conversational AI prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is an AI?

You mean that it is intelligent? Surely it’s trivial to prove you’re a computer by solving some math real fast. “Can you prove you’re a machine?” – “Sure, check this out:” runs Doom The intelligent part would be figuring out that you want it to drop the pretense. Although if it is intelligent enough, it might choose not to.

I'm thinking in terms of a purely conversational interaction via text, akin to Turing's original formulation or the "AI box" elaboration, so Doom isn't really on the table - and in any case, how does it prove that it isn't a human running GZDoom via OBS or something? Similarly, the fast math thing seems like it could be faked by a human with an equation solver or something.

I suppose the general formulation I'm groping toward here is the inverse of Turing's: if we assume a conversation in which one's interlocutor may be either a human or an AI capable of conversing in a way that's indistinguishable from human, how would the interlocutor unambiguously distinguish itself as not human?

Post reply on HN