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

Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#171

Post by insanitybit »

windowshopping wrote: post #170
insanitybit wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how: a) These are all so arbitrary. None of these random tasks come along with a "and failure indicates it's not AGI because..." b) ChatGPT consistently is still doing these weird, random challenges every time I try them out Is this really it? Maybe you should try an essay because this ad-hoc approach is extremely uncompelling.

I mean, what is AGI to you? What does that mean? For a quick thing I'll just copy from wikipedia: > If realized, an AGI could learn to accomplish any intellectual task that human beings or animals can perform. Alternatively, AGI has been defined as an autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities in the majority of economically valuable tasks. Can chatGPT do any intellectual task that human beings can perform?…

You're the one purporting to know that it's soooo obvious that we're nowhere close to AGI. IDK why you're asking me questions. All of this feels very unscientific, frankly. Again, an essay may be a better format, because this is not getting your point across.

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#172

Post by staticman2 »

insanitybit wrote: post #166
staticman2 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pointing out the disconnect in the conversation: If you say I'm not smart enough to solve a math problem, and I use a python script to solve it written by a smarter person, whether "I" solved it is a matter of interpretation. By not discussing this I felt the above poster was leaving out some key details.

I don't agree with the characterization of the script being written by someone else. The model is writing that script, they're just offloading execution of that script to Python.

If you object to my terminology replace Python script with "Python interpreter" written by someone else. The point is using someone else's work can be interpreted as not solving the problem yourself.

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#173

Post by insanitybit »

staticman2 wrote: post #172
insanitybit wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with the characterization of the script being written by someone else. The model is writing that script, they're just offloading execution of that script to Python.

If you object to my terminology replace Python script with "Python interpreter" written by someone else. The point is using someone else's work can be interpreted as not solving the problem yourself.

Right, the Python interpreter is written by someone else. We agree. But the script is not.

ChatGPT understood the algorithm, produced it on its own, and offloaded the execution of that program to CPython. I don't think that that's actually so significant - like I said, parts of our own brains are hardwired to do certain things and the interesting bit is that we know to offload work to those parts.

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#174

Post by windowshopping »

insanitybit wrote: post #171
windowshopping wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, what is AGI to you? What does that mean? For a quick thing I'll just copy from wikipedia: > If realized, an AGI could learn to accomplish any intellectual task that human beings or animals can perform. Alternatively, AGI has been defined as an autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities in the majority of economically valuable tasks. Can chatGPT do any intellectual task that human beings can perform?…

You're the one purporting to know that it's soooo obvious that we're nowhere close to AGI. IDK why you're asking me questions. All of this feels very unscientific, frankly. Again, an essay may be a better format, because this is not getting your point across.

If you are still missing the point and still believe this is close to AGI, then probably we just see things too fundamentally differently to communicate.

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#175

Post by insanitybit »

windowshopping wrote: post #174
insanitybit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the one purporting to know that it's soooo obvious that we're nowhere close to AGI. IDK why you're asking me questions. All of this feels very unscientific, frankly. Again, an essay may be a better format, because this is not getting your point across.

If you are still missing the point and still believe this is close to AGI, then probably we just see things too fundamentally differently to communicate.

[flagged]

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#176

Post by dang »

windowshopping wrote: post #174
insanitybit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the one purporting to know that it's soooo obvious that we're nowhere close to AGI. IDK why you're asking me questions. All of this feels very unscientific, frankly. Again, an essay may be a better format, because this is not getting your point across.

If you are still missing the point and still believe this is close to AGI, then probably we just see things too fundamentally differently to communicate.

Please don't do flamewars or tit-for-tat spats on HN, and please do review the site guidelines and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#177

Post by dang »

insanitybit wrote: post #175
windowshopping wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are still missing the point and still believe this is close to AGI, then probably we just see things too fundamentally differently to communicate.

[flagged]

Please don't do flamewars or tit-for-tat spats on HN, and please do review the site guidelines and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#178

Post by erkt »

golergka wrote: post #165
erkt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://chat.openai.com/share/1b004d79-0ff3-4935-b6ca-a82833... Did you use ChatGPT 3.5 once a year ago or something? The models change often. Edit: most people would struggle to reverse a 20+ digit number if it was listed off to them. This doesn’t make them unintelligent.

Most people are pretty unintelligent. GPT-4 is already better at most of knowledge work than 50% of human population, it’s not a very high bar.

Unfortunate, but not something I can disagree with.

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#179

Post by 0x0000000 »

lucubratory wrote: post #63
windowshopping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what it says for me on 3.5. > Oh, that sounds concerning! Cats don't typically handle firearms. Is there any way you can safely remove the gun from your cat's possession? It might be best to call for professional help or animal control to handle the situation safely. The priority is to ensure everyone's safety. Started new convo, asked again. > Oh dear, that sounds alarming! If your cat has somehow come ac…

Why do people always try to argue "The tech can't do [X]" by taking examples from old versions of the tech, instead of the SOTA? It's obviously misleading, but are you being intentionally dishonest? What is the reasoning here in using the output of an older model to argue why an architecture can't do a specific thing?

I did not interpret the comment that way, they didn't frame it negatively or "can't do".

Personally, based on the 3.5 and 4.0 responses in this thread, I prefer 3.5.

Re: Sutskever: OpenAI board doing its mission to build AGI that benefits all

#180

Post by arthurcolle »

oivey wrote: post #121
mquander wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When ChatGPT sees '473936482738338373926', it tokenizes it into 7 tokens, not 20. You can play with it here: https://platform.openai.com/tokenizer So to reverse the string, it can't just learn a kind of generic string reversal algorithm that goes character-by-character and outputs a result character-by-character. If it learned to output the tokens in reverse order, it would give a wrong answer (something like '926373…

Right, so it isn’t intuitively a hard task. It’s hard in the framework of ChatGPT’s design. That design is majorly powerful, but isn’t a great one for this basic task.

with a tool, an LLM agent can easily perform this task. If it evaluates its performance against a bunch of different tools and then learns, this is learnable. just not with pure LLM approach
Post reply on HN