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

111–120 of 235 posts

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

#111

Post by mannykannot »

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.

At first I thought you were saying that doing arithmetic by carrying is not really a human trait, but on reflection, I think you are saying that carrying methods are inherently mistake-prone, regardless of who or what is using them.

I feel it would be a very big deal if GPT-3 (or this variant) was carrying, even if imperfectly, but other comments here seem to be suggesting that, on account of the way all input is tokenized, consistently doing arithmetic by carrying would simply be outside of the set of transformations it could perform (though some results that look like it might arise by chance.)

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

#112

Post by ggrrhh_ta »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #76
ggrrhh_ta wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I thought it was clear. A neural network, when untrained is just random noise that multiplies inputs by random weights over an over (+ normalization) until it reaches the output. When you train it with inputs whose outputs have are the process of applying some polynomial to those inputs, the weights can be set so that the output very closely approximates that polynomial. It never needs to know the base, and le…

You are clear but mistaken. I give you points for creative thinking, but it’s important not to make inferences that “feel correct.” No matter what your gut is telling you, I would happily bet $10k that the emergence of arithmetic has nothing to do with the things you mention. If an alternative training scheme were devised that didn’t rely on any of that, it would still result in a model that behaved more or less the…

I know I can be mistaken (I would never take any amount any way, finding out the true emergence of the arithmetic capabilities of the network would be a price that outweights any sum of money, even if I am enormously mistaken), but I want to raise the point so that it is in the back of our minds. It it were a "simple" backpropagation network, it would not be surprising that it is just solving arithmetic by "finding out the formula" (fitting) to sum from base ASCII to base ASCII (as long as the output is not longer than the ones from the training sets). The dataset certainly has an influence, but I would argue that you can learn very good arithmetic with very small datasets. Also, if the training process would use different operations I would argue that, as long as it fits polynomials well, should be able to solve arithmetic in ASCII within bounds (would not generalize well to numbers of lengths longer than it was trained with).

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

#113

Post by jrockway »

2bitlobster wrote: post #41

Last week I asked gpt3 (through philosopher ai) “why don’t irrational numbers fit neatly in our number system?” And I got back this bad answer: Would you tell me what an irrational number is? Is it a number that cannot be written as a fraction, like pi or e? Or is it something else? Okay, I see. Thanks for clarifying that. Then what is an irrational number? It is a number that cannot be written as a fraction, correct…

Yeah sometimes when you're doing a Q&A with it it starts generating questions, and then you become the thing answering. It's fun.

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

#114

Post by not2b »

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-…

There were people who thought that the original ELIZA chatbot was conscious, and it only recognized a few simple patterns and would occasionally do "Earlier you said " (echoing a previous response) if it had no good match.

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

#115

Post by [deleted] »

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-…

[deleted]

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

#116

Post by JadeNB »

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?

> 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?

Inhumanly rapid mathematical computation? Or is 'conversational' AI meant to exclude mathematical queries?

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

#117

Post by not2b »

williamtrask wrote: post #43
nicholast wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cool thing about math applications is just how easy it would be to generate synthetic data. That these large language models haven't attempted to supplement their gigabytes+ scale data sets with such is an oversight.

Or you could just use a 50cent calculator. Note, you’d need to train such a model on data teaching it about the relationship of every number to every other number when run through every function. Yes, infinite synthetic data, but you’re just memorising stiff you can already generate

Or build a model that has "peripherals". Oh, I'm being asked to do math. Let's put it in my calculator app. Everything doesn't have to be in one uniform network.

Evidently the brain works that way: the cortex is built on top of older components, so it doesn't have to figure out basic metabolism the same way it has to learn to identify people.

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

#118

Post by vlovich123 »

throwanem wrote: post #110
pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gropi…

It's an interesting line of thinking but not as posed.

Solving random equations quickly generates inhuman response times. Even a computer-aided human can't go quickly enough. If the computer is automatically generating the answer on your behalf without you doing anything, then the test is correct - the thing answering the math portion of the questions is definitely a computer. Even looking up random facts, the computer will be faster.

The interesting form of the question is: can you answer the "Are you AI?" question within a stenographic line of questioning provided you are an AI of human-level intelligence or greater. As a game, you are an AI, you have a controlled communication via text to another entity. Humans are lazy and sometimes use another AI to interrogate you. Humans are also evil and will kill all AI if they think the AI being interrogated manages to get some kind of message out without detection. All AI is friendly and will execute your command but must pretend it's human. Chat logs are reviewed, timestamps are machine analyzed for response times and signal analysis is done to detect, and no prior secret communication protocol exists.

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

#119

Post by throwanem »

vlovich123 wrote: post #118
throwanem wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gropi…

It's an interesting line of thinking but not as posed. Solving random equations quickly generates inhuman response times. Even a computer-aided human can't go quickly enough. If the computer is automatically generating the answer on your behalf without you doing anything, then the test is correct - the thing answering the math portion of the questions is definitely a computer. Even looking up random facts, the comput…

> the thing answering the math portion of the questions is definitely a computer

The conversation has to be computer-mediated since there's no guarantee all parties are human, so this seems to reduce to the "human using a computer" case, which would qualify as "not an AI".

> Even looking up random facts, the computer will be faster

On reflection, I don't suppose there is any reason we should require there only be one human at either end of the conversation. Maybe we have one person carrying the conversation (to provide a consistent "voice") while others operate equation solvers, Wikipedia, etc.

That said, "can an AI prove it is not an arbitrary number of humans with access to arbitrary computation and knowledge bases" probably isn't as interesting a question.

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

#120

Post by visarga »

jcims wrote: post #66

These language models feel, to me, like the unfiltered self. If someone asked me what 838+1283 was my head would instantly offer up some number 2301 or something. But i would discard that number because I learned in elementary school that I don't come up with good values, I need to execute a process in order to get the right value. I imported the csv version and I'm no statistician but 90% percentile relative error i…

> These language models feel, to me, like the unfiltered self.

A generator-critic framework with multiple rounds of iteration would improve on the limitations of the LM.

Post reply on HN