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

Understanding ChatGPT

atmosera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 241 posts

Re: Understanding ChatGPT

#111

Post by colinmorelli »

namaria wrote: post #94
colinmorelli wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat related to this: We seem to operate on the assumption that sentience is "better," but I'm not sure that's something we can demonstrate anyway. At some point, given sufficient training data, it's entirely possible that a model which "doesn't know what it's saying" and is "stringing words together using an expansive statistical model" will outperform a human at the vast, vast majority of tasks we need. AI that…

We can't even prove other people are sentient. This is not a fruitful line of inquiry.

If this is a reply to me, I think you missed the point I'm making here. I don't care if we can prove other people are sentient or not.

My point is that it may well not matter whether a thing is sentient or not if a well-trained algorithm can achieve the same or better results as something that we believe is sentient.

Re: Understanding ChatGPT

#112

Post by fauigerzigerk »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #93
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read. Do tell— how can you prove humans are any different? One difference between humans and LLMs is that humans have a wide range of inputs and outputs beyond language. The claim that humans are word predictors is not something I would want to dispute. The claim that humans are nothing more than word predictors is obviously wrong though. When I…

> One difference between humans and LLMs is that humans have a wide range of inputs and outputs beyond language. So does Bing and multimodal models. > The claim that humans are word predictors is not something I would want to dispute. We have forward predictive models in our brains, see David Eagleman. > The claim that humans are nothing more than word predictors is obviously wrong though. When I go to buy food, it's…

>So does Bing and multimodal models.

I'm not talking about getting fed pictures and videos. I'm talking about interacting with others in the physical world, having social relations, developing goals and interests, taking the initiative, perceiving how the world responds to all of that.

>What does "fully" mean?

Being able to draw conclusions that are not possible to draw from language alone. The meaning of language is not just more language or pictures or videos. Language refers to stuff outside of itself that can only be understood based on a shared perception of physical and social reality.

Re: Understanding ChatGPT

#113

Post by namaria »

colinmorelli wrote: post #111
namaria wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't even prove other people are sentient. This is not a fruitful line of inquiry.

If this is a reply to me, I think you missed the point I'm making here. I don't care if we can prove other people are sentient or not. My point is that it may well not matter whether a thing is sentient or not if a well-trained algorithm can achieve the same or better results as something that we believe is sentient.

You say it may not matter, I say I think it certainly doesn't.

Re: Understanding ChatGPT

#114

Post by 2-718-281-828 »

maxdoop wrote: post #28

“It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read. Do tell— how can you prove humans are any different? The most common “proofs” I’ve seen: “Humans are more complex”. Ok, so you’re implying we add more complexity (maybe more modalities?); if more complexity is added, will you continue to say “LLMs are just word predictors”? “Humans are actually reasoning. LLMs are not.” Again, how would you…

ChatGPT doesn't even work with "words" to begin with but with vectors encoding meaning of words. At least as far as I understand it. That's why it is able to capture meaning and concepts to a certain degree.

Re: Understanding ChatGPT

#116

Post by the_gipsy »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #63
maxdoop wrote: post #28

“It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read. Do tell— how can you prove humans are any different? The most common “proofs” I’ve seen: “Humans are more complex”. Ok, so you’re implying we add more complexity (maybe more modalities?); if more complexity is added, will you continue to say “LLMs are just word predictors”? “Humans are actually reasoning. LLMs are not.” Again, how would you…

>“It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read. Do tell— how can you prove humans are any different? One difference between humans and LLMs is that humans have a wide range of inputs and outputs beyond language. The claim that humans are word predictors is not something I would want to dispute. The claim that humans are nothing more than word predictors is obviously wrong though. When I…

But maybe the "I'm hungry" inner monologue is just word prediction, and this could be the most important thing about being human. Transforming some digestive nerve stimulus into a trigger (prompt?) for those words might not be important.

Re: Understanding ChatGPT

#117

Post by notahacker »

teolandon wrote: post #109
notahacker wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer simulation of water can easily convince the human eye it's water, both in terms of pixel perfect representation and simulated behaviour in simulated environments. Until they try to put it in a bottle and drink it. Turns out that physics of what it actually is matters more than human observation that some of the pretty output patterns look identical or superior to the real thing. (And aside from being physi…

I've interacted with many people online, only through text, and my life has significantly changed because of many of those interactions. The effect on my life would have been the same whether the entities typing were made out of silicon or carbon.

Sure, and I've been deeply affected by books, but I'm not going to start using that as a basis for an argument a book and a human think in exactly the same way

Re: Understanding ChatGPT

#119

Post by rvnx »

freehorse wrote: post #86
scrollaway wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick google reveals the same of your comment. Are you an AI?

The comment answers to how GPT supposedly produces "new interesting concepts and ideas". The comment you are answering is not supposed or perceived to present anything novel. So both your argument and the comment you reply to are technically correct, neither produces any novel idea; only difference is your reply is out of place.

I'm pretty sure space-time expands according to scientific literature, doesn't it ? (this is why I picked this weird concept of a shrinking space-time)

Re: Understanding ChatGPT

#120

Post by PartiallyTyped »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #112
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One difference between humans and LLMs is that humans have a wide range of inputs and outputs beyond language. So does Bing and multimodal models. > The claim that humans are word predictors is not something I would want to dispute. We have forward predictive models in our brains, see David Eagleman. > The claim that humans are nothing more than word predictors is obviously wrong though. When I go to buy food, it's…

>So does Bing and multimodal models. I'm not talking about getting fed pictures and videos. I'm talking about interacting with others in the physical world, having social relations, developing goals and interests, taking the initiative, perceiving how the world responds to all of that. >What does "fully" mean? Being able to draw conclusions that are not possible to draw from language alone. The meaning of language is…

I fail to see how the first is useful.

For all intents and purposes your brain might as well be a Boltzmann brain / in a jar getting electrical stimuli. Your notion of reality is a mere interpretation of electrical signals / information.

This implies that all such information can be encoded via language or whatever else.

You also don’t take initiative. Every action that you take is dependent upon all previous actions as your brain is not devoid of operations until you “decide” to do something.

You merely call the outcome of your brain’s competing circuits as “taking initiative”.

GPT “took initiative” to pause and ask me for more details instead of just giving me stuff out.

As for the latter, I don’t think that holds. Language is just information. None of our brains are even grounded in reality either. We are grounded in what we perceive as reality.

A blind person has no notion of colour yet we don’t claim they are not sentient or generally intelligent. A paraplegic person who lacks proprioception and motor movements is not “as grounded” in reality as we are.

You see where this is going.

With all due to respect, you are in denial.

Post reply on HN