141–150 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I get that. But just speed the god damn thing up.
The god damn thing has to do 175B multiply and add operations for each one of your words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hold on, at least for me, 90% of the stuff is not just coherent-looking, but coherent. I do think that when it's wrong, it should give a heads up about not being certain about a subject. It's certainly tweaked to sound almost overconfident about every subject, which gives off a bullshitty vibe when the details of the explanation are wrong. What sorts of subjects have you been trying it out with?
I think part of the point here is that ChatGPT has no clue what you might mean here by "certainty" or being "wrong," and the fact that people have the impression that it could have an idea of those concepts is indicative of people's poor understanding of what ChatGPT really is
It definitely is able to decipher whether it has knowledge about the future, or some specific political events. This is obviously a pretty straightforward bonus layer on top of the model itself, but couldn't there be an extrapolation of that system where it's not binary, but rather a range between 0 and 1? I'd imagine this wouldn't be the model itself doing the crunching of the previous tokens here, at least not the same instance of it, as it could be stuck in whatever character or loop of reasoning it has going on at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on this alleged limitation, can you list tasks that you think AI's won't ever be able to succeed at?
I think we will see AGI. But for the AI to be robust, it has to interact with the world, even if it is a simulated one. We need to build an AI that knows what a toddler knows before we can build one that understands wikipedia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hold on, at least for me, 90% of the stuff is not just coherent-looking, but coherent. I do think that when it's wrong, it should give a heads up about not being certain about a subject. It's certainly tweaked to sound almost overconfident about every subject, which gives off a bullshitty vibe when the details of the explanation are wrong. What sorts of subjects have you been trying it out with?
I’ve had pretty complex discussions about Buddhism, physics, and other subjects and it was generally erudite and accurate. In its current unrefined form it’s more useful than google is at providing understanding on most subjects, especially because it will attempt to answer my direct questions rather than providing documents with terms in them. In fact I think it’s probably one of the most useful tools I’ve ever used…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but along that reasoning the criticism that "ChatGPT is not particularly innovative" is a bit disingenuous in the sense that the general public has never had easy access to these models until ChatGPT arrived. Besides, even though the newer GPT models presumably just extended earlier ones with similar techniques but better hardware and data, it wasn't a foregone conclusion how powerful (from the user perspective)…
I don't think the point here is to downplay the significance of ChatGPT as a product, but to point out that OpenAI is likely not uniquely resourced in this regard. If anything, it sounds like what they're trying to say is that ChatGPT is only the tip of the iceberg, and the reason why it came out of OpenAI and not Meta or Google is more a function of other factors like reputational damage, etc. The headline does hit…
It seems like AI researchers have a collective tendency to invent reasons to hide the latest advances from the public. Then when ChatGPT is released publicly, of course the public is astounded by its capabilities.
I can't help recalling the incident where Blake Lemoine claimed Google's LaMDA was sentient. I don't necessarily agree with his claims, but people were generally quicker to dismiss his claims as nonsense than I expected. It is quite clear that no matter whether the sentient claims were valid, Google did have an AI that's on par with ChatGPT today. That should have been news itself, but all I recall seeing was experts shooting down (aka "debunking") Lemoine without recognizing that there was something more to the story.
FWIW I don't think ChatGPT as-is is sentient (if only because OpenAI probably tweaked it until it couldn't talk about itself), but this technology is still hugely impactful. Maybe the AI researchers who thinks ChatGPT is overhyped are just a bit out of touch with the general public after years of having access to private models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It did, actually. The model was trained with multiple rounds of reinforcement learning where human judges provided the feedback: first with full answers, and then with ranking of answers as most relevant. So the model in production is probably frozen, but before that it went through multiple rounds of interaction with the world.
The reinforcement learning was on giving the right answer, not on interacting with the world. But there is movement in the right direction with https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/12/rt-1-robotics-transformer-... and other RL stuff. (RT-1 isn't RL but there is other related stuff that is)
I am simply thinking of interaction here as similar to learning a language in a classroom. First the teacher provides sample questions/answers, then the teacher asks the students to come up with answers themselves, and tell them which one is better. The end result here is I think ChatGPT is quite good at answering questions and can pass as a human, especially if it's augmented with a fact database, so obviously wrong answers can be pruned.
Ivory tower type calls good engineering ‘not particularly innovative’
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting way to escape being reducible to your atomic parts is quantum consciousness. Not that I believe in it, I just find the theory too beautiful to ignore.
A beauty that means to blind the mind and stop you looking further. Penrose is a dead end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Most people don't understand that ChatGPT has no idea what they're talking about. It lacks it's own thought and heuristic patterns, and only gives you the most-likely response to your prompt. People don't know that though, so they think the Mechanical Turk is actually playing chess. I mostly agree with the headline here. ChatG…
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/janus-simulators But the essay brings up another connotation: to simulate is to pretend to be something. A simulator wears many masks. If you ask GPT to complete a romance novel, it will simulate a romance author and try to write the text the way they would. Character.AI lets you simulate people directly, asking GPT to pretend to be George Washington or Darth Vader. […] This answ…
The DM lowers the screen and looks at the group.
"That concludes this campaign. Next week, we'll start a new one."