101–110 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT4 solves this problem In any combination easily. What do so many posters seem to claim to have stumped it?
GPT-4 is not solving logic problems, it's doing an extremely good job of generating text based on recognizing familiar patterns. If you give it something weird and unfamiliar, it will absolutely fail.
> generating text based on recognizing familiar patterns
That's the same thing.
Weirdly enough, this sort of lines up with a theory posted on 4chan 4 days ago. The gist being that if the version is formally declared AGI, it can't be licensed to Microsoft and others for commercial gain. As a result Altman wants it not to be called AGI, other board members do. Archived link below. NB THIS IS 4CHAN - THERE WILL OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. https://archive.ph/sFMXa
That actually makes perfect sense.
Also love the "formally declared AGI".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I trust AGI more than any of the humans so far who have tried to argue they can wrangle it.
I would be curious as to the basis for that trust. I struggle to find any reason that AGI would care about "humans" at all, other than during the short period of time it needed them to be cooperative actuators for machinery that is creating a replacement for humans that the AGI can control directly. My expectation for the chain of events goes something like: 1) AGI gains sentience 2) AGI "breaks out" of its original…
Gaining sentience is not the same as gaining infallible super-sentience.
There may even be some kind of asymptotic limit on how correct and reliable sentience can be. The more general the sentience, the more likely it is to make mistakes.
Maybe.
Personally in the short term I'm more worried about abuse of what have already, or might credibly have in the very near future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is enough there to make me believe it's real. After all, a big objection to LLMs is they are just "fancy autocomplete" or "stochastic parrots". I don't agree, but LLMs famously are "bad at math", that is you can't really train them to do math unless they've seen previous calculations with similar numbers in their training sets. Training an AI system to truly do arbitrary mathematical logic (think "compl…
Mathematical logic doesn’t refer to ‘complex word problems with big numbers’. The reason that LLMs struggle (well, are hopeless currently) with mathematics problems is not because it involves arithmetic (although this is already enough of a struggle) but because it requires a conceptual understanding of the ideas rather than just being about manipulating language — a lot of the goings-on are hidden in the semantic wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is enough there to make me believe it's real. After all, a big objection to LLMs is they are just "fancy autocomplete" or "stochastic parrots". I don't agree, but LLMs famously are "bad at math", that is you can't really train them to do math unless they've seen previous calculations with similar numbers in their training sets. Training an AI system to truly do arbitrary mathematical logic (think "compl…
I compared GPT-4 Turbo with my previous tests on GPT-4, and the results are quite interesting. GPT-4 Turbo is better at arithmetic and makes fewer errors in multiplying four-digit numbers. In fact, it makes significantly fewer errors with five-digit numbers. The level of errors on five-digit numbers is high but much lower than with four-digit numbers in GPT-4. multiplication of floats XX.MMMM and YYY.ZZZZ produces er…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I trust AGI more than any of the humans so far who have tried to argue they can wrangle it.
I would be curious as to the basis for that trust. I struggle to find any reason that AGI would care about "humans" at all, other than during the short period of time it needed them to be cooperative actuators for machinery that is creating a replacement for humans that the AGI can control directly. My expectation for the chain of events goes something like: 1) AGI gains sentience 2) AGI "breaks out" of its original…
Weirdly enough, this sort of lines up with a theory posted on 4chan 4 days ago. The gist being that if the version is formally declared AGI, it can't be licensed to Microsoft and others for commercial gain. As a result Altman wants it not to be called AGI, other board members do. Archived link below. NB THIS IS 4CHAN - THERE WILL OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. https://archive.ph/sFMXa
Well it isn't AGI - so it sounds like the board is more interested in keeping MSFT from making money than whether or not it's actually AGI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be curious as to the basis for that trust. I struggle to find any reason that AGI would care about "humans" at all, other than during the short period of time it needed them to be cooperative actuators for machinery that is creating a replacement for humans that the AGI can control directly. My expectation for the chain of events goes something like: 1) AGI gains sentience 2) AGI "breaks out" of its original…
I think you're still guilty of anthropomorphization here. It's understandable; we are creatures of flesh and blood and we have a hard time imagining intelligences that are not reliant on some physical form, as we are. We're tempted to think that as long as we control the physical aspect of a superintelligence's existence, we're somehow safe. You are assuming that a superintelligence will continue to rely on a physica…
And it's true, I chose to ignore the possibility that it discovers something about how the universe that humans have not yet observed but my thought is that is a low probability outcome (and it is unnecessary for the AGI to develop itself into an immortal entity and thus assure its continued operation).
Do anyone know what Q* is?
Is far as I can tell, this is the first time an OpenAI project called Q* has been mentioned in the news. I don't see any prior mentions on Twitter either. (I wish they'd picked a different letter, given all the Q-related conspiracy theories that we're already dealing with...)
First Twitter changes to X, then AI changes to Q*.
What happened to multi-syllable words? They used to be quite handy. Maybe if our attention spans shorten, so does our ability to use longer words. Weird. Or, said otherwise - TL;DR: LOL, ROFL.