In the demo video on https://openai.com/blog/openai-codex/#spacegame it seems like it goes and does an image search for a picture of an asteroid, and them embeds without attribution a direct link to a image hosted on "d.newsweek.com". Not sure I'd call that a resounding example of generating good code...
OpenAI Codex
141–150 of 181 posts
Re: OpenAI Codex
#142I really want to just play with this tech- it’s frightening but also the future, but I’m still waiting to be accepted on the GitHub copilot waitlist. I wonder how long this will take for people who don’t know someone who knows someone…
Uhh... I'm literally no one but got the access for like a week or so. I got 134 repos and 12,060 contributions in the last year. Idk if that mattered.
I have around 10 repos and perhaps a few hundred contributions total over all my years. Got accepted within a few days. Seems to be random.
Re: OpenAI Codex
#143The "language models don't really understand anything" corner is getting smaller and smaller. In the last few months we've seen pretty definitive evidence that transformers can recombine concepts ([1], [2]) and do simple logical inference using contextual information ([3], "make the score font color visible"). I see no reason that this technology couldn't smoothly scale into human-level intelligence, yet lots of peop…
> The "language models don't really understand anything" corner is getting smaller and smaller. In my mind, understanding a thing means you can justify an answer. Like a student showing their work and being able to defend it. An answer with a proof understands the answer with respect to the proof it provides. E.g. to understand an answer with regards to first order logic, it'll have to be able to defend a logical ded…
> In my mind, understanding a thing means you can justify an answer.
Do you understand cats? If I show you a picture of either a cat or a dog do you think you can tell which one it is? I think most people could solve that challenge, and if pressed they could vax poetically about what makes them think it is a cat. Maybe they would mention the shape of an ear, or talk about feline grace or what have you. But is that really a “justification”? Let alone one they can “defend”? How would “defending” even work in this situation?
Re: OpenAI Codex
#144How does Codex make the connection between natural language and code? Comments? variable names? file names? docs?
Re: OpenAI Codex
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
at the point where 1/2/3 are possible, what value does the startup have when anyone else can ask it to do the same thing?
Do your competitors have access to this tool that gets you started 20x faster? If so, you want the tool. Your copycat startup may not have incredible value, but selling shovels always pays.
ah, true... touché
Realistically if we get to that point the landscape of "startups" will drastically change
Re: OpenAI Codex
#146The "language models don't really understand anything" corner is getting smaller and smaller. In the last few months we've seen pretty definitive evidence that transformers can recombine concepts ([1], [2]) and do simple logical inference using contextual information ([3], "make the score font color visible"). I see no reason that this technology couldn't smoothly scale into human-level intelligence, yet lots of peop…
i am exactly where you are, it’s not a matter of if, merely a matter of when
Re: OpenAI Codex
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhh... I'm literally no one but got the access for like a week or so. I got 134 repos and 12,060 contributions in the last year. Idk if that mattered.
I have around 10 repos and perhaps a few hundred contributions total over all my years. Got accepted within a few days. Seems to be random.
I have 353 repos and 2146 contributions in the past year and haven't been accepted (yet!). It does seem to be random.
Re: OpenAI Codex
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "language models don't really understand anything" This is still true. By all account, human doesn't need to read 159GB of Python code to write Python, or we simply can't. But it doesn't necessarily indicate language models aren't useful.
The problem with this (very popular) argument is that you can't give a CS course to a baby and expect them to get at programming. By the time we see our first line of code, most of us have seen a ridiculous amount of data. We've been trained in problem solving, logical reasoning, maths, natural language processing, ... Hell, we've been trained as pattern matchers since we've been born. By my account, humans actually…
Taking 11Mbps [1] as the raw uncompressed incoming data, and assuming 16 hours of waking environment consumption on average (likely high for children), a 13yo has taken in less than 400 TB of information (I used 11 * 60 * 60 * 16 * 365 * 13 / 8.) That's... surprisingly low.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/science/information-theory/Physio...
Re: OpenAI Codex
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "language models don't really understand anything" corner is getting smaller and smaller. In my mind, understanding a thing means you can justify an answer. Like a student showing their work and being able to defend it. An answer with a proof understands the answer with respect to the proof it provides. E.g. to understand an answer with regards to first order logic, it'll have to be able to defend a logical ded…
> In my mind, understanding a thing means you can justify an answer. Do you understand cats? If I show you a picture of either a cat or a dog do you think you can tell which one it is? I think most people could solve that challenge, and if pressed they could vax poetically about what makes them think it is a cat. Maybe they would mention the shape of an ear, or talk about feline grace or what have you. But is that re…
You could probably teach an AI to post-hoc rationalize their decisions, the same way people do.
Re: OpenAI Codex
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "language models don't really understand anything" corner is getting smaller and smaller. In my mind, understanding a thing means you can justify an answer. Like a student showing their work and being able to defend it. An answer with a proof understands the answer with respect to the proof it provides. E.g. to understand an answer with regards to first order logic, it'll have to be able to defend a logical ded…
> In my mind, understanding a thing means you can justify an answer. What if the language model can generate a step-by-step explanation in the form of text? [0] There's no guarantee that the reasoning was used to come up with the answer in the first place, and no proof that the reasoning isn't just the product of "a really fancy markov chain generator", but would you accept it? We're really walking into Searle's Chin…
>There's no guarantee that the reasoning was used to come up with the answer in the first place, and no proof that the reasoning isn't just the product of....
You're holding machines to a higher standard than we hold people.