Large Language Models aren't a silver bullet – they don't solve all your problems. But they are a holy grail – as a universal common sense module they give IT systems a capability they never had before, a capability which has been sought after from since computers became a thing, a capacity for common sense. We now have that capacity and that alone will revolutionize the world. The chatbots aren't about chat, they ar…
Wait until they can watch TV to learn (I am serious). If you imbue them with competitive play, oh boy. We just gotta figure out what they think funny is.
Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
101–110 of 164 posts
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#102Large Language Models aren't a silver bullet – they don't solve all your problems. But they are a holy grail – as a universal common sense module they give IT systems a capability they never had before, a capability which has been sought after from since computers became a thing, a capacity for common sense. We now have that capacity and that alone will revolutionize the world. The chatbots aren't about chat, they ar…
> Like the article, I am only talking about technology that already exists although the progress in deep learning is still super-exponential.
> We will certainly achieve AGI during this year as it will only require making these systems self-play like we did with AlphaGo -> AlphaZero -> MuZero. Self-play, or reinforcement learning with machine feedback will skyrocket the performance of these systems in language domain, which conveniently encompasses much of what is still missing for AGI.
There’s an important difference between exponential and sigmoidal curves. The early stages are indistinguishable, and not enough time has passed to judge.
Personally, I don’t think AGI is possible with current techniques. You say all that’s needed is self play or RLHF. This is categorically not true. It doesn’t even guarantee that AIs will ever care whether they’re alive, a fundamental property of sentience.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copilot and chatgpt are some of the services i am perfectly content paying for. ChatGPT is a great way to delve into new topics, and for that alone it’s worth it.
> ChatGPT is a great way to delve into new topics Like bears in space? ))) seems like a great way to delve into known topics so that you are able to catch it when it starts to confidently and plausibly hallucinate
And we should blindly trust anything you read on the internet written by a real person? It's still valuable as a "search engine" with a different interface, especially if you can describe the problem but don't know the words to search for. For me that's a common issue when jumping into a new space.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#104Large Language Models aren't a silver bullet – they don't solve all your problems. But they are a holy grail – as a universal common sense module they give IT systems a capability they never had before, a capability which has been sought after from since computers became a thing, a capacity for common sense. We now have that capacity and that alone will revolutionize the world. The chatbots aren't about chat, they ar…
Wait until they can watch TV to learn (I am serious). If you imbue them with competitive play, oh boy. We just gotta figure out what they think funny is.
"Learning Video Representations from Large Language Models" - https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04501
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#105This is yet another article about "ChatGPT" that doesn't contain the strings "GPT-4" or "GPT4".
I tried two of the "failure mode" examples given: The Russian bears in space, and walking across a river with an average depth of 3 feet. The examples fail in GPT-3.5 while GPT-4 gives the "correct" response. The article is already out of date.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#106Who claimed it was the holy grail?
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#107Large Language Models aren't a silver bullet – they don't solve all your problems. But they are a holy grail – as a universal common sense module they give IT systems a capability they never had before, a capability which has been sought after from since computers became a thing, a capacity for common sense. We now have that capacity and that alone will revolutionize the world. The chatbots aren't about chat, they ar…
We will certainly achieve AGI during this year...
As exciting and transformative as GPT3+ is, let's not get too hypey.
You need to back up outlandish claims with actual evidence and references. As discussed many times in this forum there's no evidence of sentience or any reason to consider the current systems to be even on the path to AGI.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#108Sure, anyone that uses ChatGPT knows it's currently not perfect. But there's a presumption that these tools are going to keep improving over time. Which is presumably why the AI hype is so strong. Whether AI ends up displacing people from their jobs in the long term, well, that's impossible to know. Just because no technological advancement has ever done that in the past doesn't mean it will never happen in the futur…
As long as the accuracy of an LLM’s output is unknowable, there’s going to be a pretty hard limit on the kinds of jobs these tools can “replace”. And its not at all clear that this fundamental problem can be fixed at all with the current approach.
A tool doesn't have to obviate a worker's contributions 1:1 to replace them.
If one person can now do the work of 1.5 people, then the number of people needed for a profession shrinks, all else equal. For example, a professional translator may be able to do 2x the work by leveraging LLM/other AI, even though you still need them to validate the results. If productivity doubles, then only half the people are required to meet current needs.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#109Large Language Models aren't a silver bullet – they don't solve all your problems. But they are a holy grail – as a universal common sense module they give IT systems a capability they never had before, a capability which has been sought after from since computers became a thing, a capacity for common sense. We now have that capacity and that alone will revolutionize the world. The chatbots aren't about chat, they ar…
> Like the article, I am only talking about technology that already exists although the progress in deep learning is still super-exponential. > We will certainly achieve AGI during this year as it will only require making these systems self-play like we did with AlphaGo -> AlphaZero -> MuZero. Self-play, or reinforcement learning with machine feedback will skyrocket the performance of these systems in language domain…
>It doesn’t even guarantee that AIs will ever care whether they’re alive, a fundamental property of sentience.
Since when?
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#110Large Language Models aren't a silver bullet – they don't solve all your problems. But they are a holy grail – as a universal common sense module they give IT systems a capability they never had before, a capability which has been sought after from since computers became a thing, a capacity for common sense. We now have that capacity and that alone will revolutionize the world. The chatbots aren't about chat, they ar…
> Like the article, I am only talking about technology that already exists although the progress in deep learning is still super-exponential. > We will certainly achieve AGI during this year as it will only require making these systems self-play like we did with AlphaGo -> AlphaZero -> MuZero. Self-play, or reinforcement learning with machine feedback will skyrocket the performance of these systems in language domain…
There is likely a definitional gap here. Sentience is unnecessary for intelligence for my definition of intelligence, but agreeing on a common definition has been tough when we understand it so poorly.
I happen to also disagree with "caring" (requires definition) being relevant to sentience, defined as the ability to perceive or feel things.