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

Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 244 posts

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#181

Post by nopinsight »

cjbprime wrote: post #156
nopinsight wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on 1) the domains 2) your comparison group. On 2), many software engineers and computer scientists compare these language models' logic and creative problem solving abilities with themselves and their peer group. But they are usually 1-2+ SD above average humans at these things. (Note: Someone gave GPT-4 an IQ test and the result was 96, slightly below the average of reference human group at 100. The SD of…

> Yes, GPT-4 is not an AGI yet, but the research paper (OP) has a point. How did you go from "human-level IQ with some super-human abilities" to "not an AGI"?

It is lacking in some aspects of intelligence. Its abilities are, in human view, less evenly distributed.

The average human-level IQ, which is not certain but seems likely, comes from superior abilities in some domains but is pulled back by others.

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#182

Post by hallqv »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #173
hallqv wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? If it writes novels like an AGI, codes like an AGI and explains complex topics like an AGI, then it's probably an AGI...

That's just it. It doesn't.

How much have you tried gpt4?

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#183

Post by killerstorm »

geophile wrote: post #35
_gabe_ wrote: post #13

> Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system. But it's just statistics, a fancy text predictor, a Markov-chain. Surely these scientists that work in the field of AI and are intimately familiar with how this stuff works aren't so stupid as to think emergent behavior pote…

> Surely these scientists ... aren't so stupid as to think emergent behavior potentially resembling intelligence could result from such simple systems? It's just statistics after all. Why is that a stupid thought? What is so preposterous about "just statistics" -- with billions of nodes, and extensively trained, producing intelligent behavior? The implicit assumption is that human brains are doing something else, or…

> Why is that a stupid thought? What is so preposterous about "just statistics"

Suppose you have N variables x_1, ..., x_10 and you want to predict y_1, ..., y_10. You know that each y_i depend on each x_i in a complex, non-linear way.

How many samples would you need to to make sense of distribution? How does number of samples grow with N?

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#184

Post by killerstorm »

outlace wrote: post #14

ChatGPT and its relatives are very very impressive on first impressions, but I've been using ChatGPT-3 and now 4 heavily every day since they became available to individuals and once you start using them this much it becomes very clear how NOT intelligent they are. It really just seems like extremely impressive statistical inference after this much use and finding so many failure modes. But it is still impressive how…

> how NOT intelligent they are

In what sense? How do you define intelligence and what is missing?

> finding so many failure modes.

Failures do not indicate a lack of intelligence. People make errors all the time.

We should differentiate failures which arise from poor training for a lack of general capabilities.

There are people who learned a bad way to do something and struggle to change that. Should we consider them unintelligent?

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#185

Post by mustacheemperor »

parineum wrote: post #66
maxdoop wrote: post #22

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.

I've been trying to make it be a DM for a while now. It works seemingly well for a while but it's making everything up on the fly, which is fine as long as there's not state that needs to be maintained/remembered. Once you start trying to get it to do combat, it seems like it's working pretty well but eventually you realize that it's just making shit up behind the scenes. It'll tell you there are 4 goblins ambushing…

I wonder if you'd get better results with a narrative-tuned tool like Sudowrite - although Sudowrite is currently limited to GPT3.5 and below.

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#186

Post by pixl97 »

parineum wrote: post #66
maxdoop wrote: post #22

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.

I've been trying to make it be a DM for a while now. It works seemingly well for a while but it's making everything up on the fly, which is fine as long as there's not state that needs to be maintained/remembered. Once you start trying to get it to do combat, it seems like it's working pretty well but eventually you realize that it's just making shit up behind the scenes. It'll tell you there are 4 goblins ambushing…

Context windows on GPT are still really small for the amount of tokens that would be generated in a story.

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#187

Post by pixl97 »

cjbprime wrote: post #156
nopinsight wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on 1) the domains 2) your comparison group. On 2), many software engineers and computer scientists compare these language models' logic and creative problem solving abilities with themselves and their peer group. But they are usually 1-2+ SD above average humans at these things. (Note: Someone gave GPT-4 an IQ test and the result was 96, slightly below the average of reference human group at 100. The SD of…

> Yes, GPT-4 is not an AGI yet, but the research paper (OP) has a point. How did you go from "human-level IQ with some super-human abilities" to "not an AGI"?

Limited context windows and inability to turn short term memory into long term model weights are the biggest ones that would keep it from being a 'human like' AGI.

Really at this point it is about how poorly defined the term is.

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#188

Post by pixl97 »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #179
hislaziness wrote: post #5

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 strange. I heard that saying for the first time yesterday on a youtube video comment section. Weird I've seen in it twice in less than 24 hours

The phenomenon you are referring to is called the "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon," also known as the "frequency illusion" or "recency illusion." It occurs when you learn something new, such as a word, a concept, or an idea, and suddenly start noticing it everywhere. This effect is believed to be the result of a combination of selective attention and confirmation bias, which make you more likely to notice and remember things that are relevant to your recent experience or interests.

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#189

Post by IanCal »

SanderNL wrote: post #166
IanCal wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are two key things here I think. 1 - we don't hold everything in working memory. We don't even hold everything in our heads, we store things elsewhere. We then learn/have ways of bringing relevant information to the fore. 2 - we have roles that we take on. The hierarchy/collaboration of differently prompted roles gives rise to a lot more depth. I already had this with a two LLM conversation about planning…

I think what we call "role-play" might be more integral to intelligence than we tend to give it credit for. Now I think of it, a "job description" could be a good prompt. If you start with a CEO-like job agent, that can think of what other jobs are necessary then you can bootstrap from there. "I want to produce and sell red bread" => "We are going to need a bakery, accountant, marketeer, etc." and then those are "com…

I think your comparison to a company is a really good mental model of a larger more capable collaborative structure.

You can even have "hiring" and "firing" where it's deciding to create or remove roles.

Re: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4

#190

Post by jpeter »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #120

To me it's really crazy that there is a public UI (ChatGPT) that lets people use GPT-4. If OpenAI had the attitude of Google they would have just gone "Yeah we created a language model that's light years ahead of anything else, look how cool it is, but sorry due to public safety you will never get to use it. Bye now!" I feel that the public accessibility of these large language models is a fluke. Being able to use it…

I think they learned their lesson after Dalle-Mini and Stable Diffusion killed the interest in Dalle2.
Post reply on HN