141–150 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you solve general instances of SAT? can the average person?
With enough patience, yes. For example: You have a goat, a wolf, a cabbage and you want to cross a river...
It would have to think out loud though.
My prediction for the top comments of this thread (paraphrased) 1. It's just Microsoft's advertisement 2. No it's just a very effective pattern matching algorithm 3. Please define intelligence first otherwise it's nonsense 4. I welcome our machine overlord 5. Lmao I asked it to do $thing and it failed I'd like to know if GPT-4 can predict the top comments of this thread?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IDK, but Microsoft seems to be now what Google was a many many years ago: a company creating tech I like to use such as Bing, Edge, Windows Terminal, VSCode, etc. Their Surface hardware is nice too (even if I prefer thinkpads) Oh and they're also helping with the linux kernel. Why can't old people let go? Companies aren't people - they respond to market incentices. Yes, Microsoft did bad stuff in the 1990s, but now t…
you like to use stuff like the windows terminal and edge? both are passable, but nothing to write home about, are they?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is hard to believe that our brain is just a bunch of attention layers and neural nets. Our brain isn't, but I'd wager the architectural complexity of a physical, neuronal brain is not optimized for all useful mental tasks, and has perhaps a fair amount of local maxima that are near vestigial in overall positive impact on cognition. Just because the human brain model of cognition is the only way nature has been a…
I agree that GI can have a different implementation compared to our human brain, but one thing is for sure: as of right now, the human brain can become more creative with a fraction of the data consumed by GPT-4. GPT-4 could be AGI, but it feels like cheating to achieve AGI by feeding the entire internet. If someone can build AGI with only the data that humans consume in their lifetime, then that, imho, is the real A…
become more creative with a fraction of the data consumed by GPT-4
You know the "you pass butter" scene from Rick & Morty? I'm imagining humans being told "you complete thought sentences"
I remember reading this somewhere - "There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.". Though I do not think GPT-4 is even close to AGI it can definitely claim to be better at faking it than many intelligent beings can.
so we are at the snapshot in time where people think 'AI is smarter than many people but not even close to being as smart as me'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can solve the variation "You have a rabbit, a wolf, a haypile and you want to cross a chasm". What kinds of variations do you have in mind?
If I add a small condition that makes the solution impossible, will it recognize that? Will it recognize for your example that it's a variation? Will it still be able to solve it when it is just a subtask of a bigger input? If I ask it a leading question that intentionally relies on a wrong solution, will it recognize that?
In the canonical example it also remarks "This is a classic river crossing puzzle" before delivering the solution.
EDIT: I tried some variations with "two wolves and a rabbit" and "three wolves and a rabbit". ChatGPT started bullshitting about its solution that supposedly was "a bit more complex". It started with taking one wolf to the other side. After I pointed out the rabbit would be eaten by the remaining two wolves it apologized for the mistake but just kept going hallucinating "correct" solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a product, and it's not that far away from that of their competitors. And there are a lot. Just a few weeks ago, Yann LeCun said that llms are not particularly interesting or innovative from the research point of view.
Oh I personally agree I am just following this article to it's logical conclusion. IF it is even the start of an AGI, it's just used as a product? Ouch... It's literally the meme from rick and morty with the butter passing robot.
GPT-4's proof of the infinitude of primes, as quoted in the paper, is wrong. Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! Not tru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our of curiosity, what is GPT-4 getting wrong so often? It’s prettily wild to my own , admittedly easily impressed, mind.
Any variant of a "surprising" logic puzzle forces it to latch onto the surprising answer. Like whether two pounds of iron weighs more than one pound of feathers. Or any objects. It "expects" the twist, and always answers accordingly. It does so even if you change up the objects to be less tricky. > Which is heavier, a pound of marbles or two pounds of corn? Both weigh the same amount, which is a total of two pounds.…
> Two pounds of corn is heavier.