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

Cargo Cult AI

queue.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 191 posts

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#181

Post by TeMPOraL »

reportgunner wrote: post #179
TeMPOraL wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just enjoyed being a game master for a nice impromptu game with GPT-4: https://cloud.typingmind.com/share/c0a68cb2-5f59-4e83-b383-b... Whether or not it fulfills the strict definition of planning in AI research, it definitely looks like planning to me. More than Hanoi towers anyway. GPT-4's performance was quite enjoyable. To incite you to click on the link and check it out in full, here's an excerpt from the game…

The cheap solution of giving the AI a map was very disappointing. You turned this game from "find MacGuffin" to "just chat with me for a bit, here's a map". Also I think you forgot to decide where MacGuffin is beforehand which led you to just give away the solution for free in the end because there was no way to find MacGuffin since he's not really anywhere. If anything this confirmed my skepticism about "AI".

Yeah, it was a cheap solution, because I wanted to finish the game early.

Playing the game to completion was not the point. The point was to test GPT-4's ability to create multi-step plans and adjust them based on new information. I fast-tracked to the ending once I believed that goal was achieved.

And yeah, of course I didn't know where the MacGuffin is beforehand. There was no map, I was inventing the whole thing on the fly - but the AI didn't know that. I didn't want to precommit to a puzzle, but rather have some flexibility to throw GPT-4 a curve-ball or two, and see how it adjusts its plan.

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#182

Post by aaroninsf »

Evergreen, indeed ever greener:

Ximm's Law: every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.

Lemma: any statement about AI which uses the word "never" to preclude some feature from future realization is false.

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#183

Post by hospitalhusband »

burnished wrote: post #135
hospitalhusband wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't base my ideas on what constitutes humanity, intelligence, or sentience on hundred million dollar fiction.

Alright then you should also consider not basing it off of whether you find the concept insulting. It doesn't seem to be the strongest rebuttal available.

That it's insulting has nothing to do with my reasoning. You have it backwards.

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#184

Post by [deleted] »

fzeroracer wrote: post #172
albertzeyer wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are misunderstanding sth. I did read your post. I'm also publishing peer-reviewed research articles related to this. I think I have some good understanding on this. I was simply saying that I partly disagree with you. And I still do. It's wrong that this should be a surprise to no-one. In fact, I think it is reasonable that it is surprising. It was indeed really unexpected that scaling up such models lead…

I recommend rereading the last line of his post. I think it's overly aggro, but you did not read his post since you ignored the very last line of it.

[deleted]

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#185

Post by [deleted] »

kerkeslager wrote: post #60
cs702 wrote: post #18

Echoing many who now find themselves blindsided by the emergent abilities and rapid adoption of LLMs, the OP: * complains that we still lack a "comprehensive theory to explain what intelligence is or how it emerges from first principles," * argues that deep neural nets like LLMs may not be capable of artificial general intelligence (AGI), and * contends that achieving AGI will require "new algorithmic paradigms." Ric…

> Echoing many who now find themselves blindsided by the emergent abilities and rapid adoption of LLMs, the OP I've said this over and over again: there are no emergent abilities . Before you leap to link me this paper, I'll link it myself: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07682 I read that paper. Did you? Did you understand it? Because if you had, you'd have seen that early on they define what they mean when they say "eme…

[deleted]

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#186

Post by laratied »

bmc7505 wrote: post #88
sebzim4500 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the relevance of the prior thread, except that you made the same claim with similarly scant evidence. What exactly is it that makes you so confident?

The problems that AI will manifest are the result of human ambition and failings, no different as any other technology that empowers individuals. Yes, individuals and organizations will misuse AI for immoral purposes, but the popular belief that AI is inherently antihumanist launders accountability by pretending to remove human agency from the equation. How we use or misuse AI technology is entirely on us. Furthermor…

IMO it is just a cultural reflection of our general safetyist cultural.

Safety has become a near sacred value. Near my house a new light at a cross walk has a computerized voice that says "stop stop stop" , "walk walk walk". A cross walk to a dead end street with basically no traffic ever.

I can almost hear the city official who had it installed "if it saves just one child's life..." even though it is a near certainty no accident ever occurs at that cross walk either way.

AI safetyist are basically that city official to me. What you posted is besides the point. It is about lowering a probability no matter how remote that probability is and even if the whole exercise is basically pointless. The gods of safety will be pleased by our offering.

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#187

Post by xcv123 »

kerkeslager wrote: post #60
cs702 wrote: post #18

Echoing many who now find themselves blindsided by the emergent abilities and rapid adoption of LLMs, the OP: * complains that we still lack a "comprehensive theory to explain what intelligence is or how it emerges from first principles," * argues that deep neural nets like LLMs may not be capable of artificial general intelligence (AGI), and * contends that achieving AGI will require "new algorithmic paradigms." Ric…

> Echoing many who now find themselves blindsided by the emergent abilities and rapid adoption of LLMs, the OP I've said this over and over again: there are no emergent abilities . Before you leap to link me this paper, I'll link it myself: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07682 I read that paper. Did you? Did you understand it? Because if you had, you'd have seen that early on they define what they mean when they say "eme…

[flagged]

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#188

Post by xcv123 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #172
albertzeyer wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are misunderstanding sth. I did read your post. I'm also publishing peer-reviewed research articles related to this. I think I have some good understanding on this. I was simply saying that I partly disagree with you. And I still do. It's wrong that this should be a surprise to no-one. In fact, I think it is reasonable that it is surprising. It was indeed really unexpected that scaling up such models lead…

I recommend rereading the last line of his post. I think it's overly aggro, but you did not read his post since you ignored the very last line of it.

[flagged]

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#189

Post by loandbehold »

loandbehold wrote: post #89
danlugo92 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all fun and games until the AI completely hallucinates the answer, while making it sound completely pausible and correct.

The issue of hallucinations is overblown. I use GPT4 all the time and don't see any hallucinations at all. It's a big problem with Google BARD and GPT3 and earlier models. But GPT4 fixed the issue of hallucinations completely.

In most cases it does acknowledge that it doesn't know.

Re: Cargo Cult AI

#190

Post by NobleLie »

fragsworth wrote: post #91
_yb2s wrote: post #79

The whole premise of this article hinges on the idea that LLMs have fundamental limitations that they clearly don’t have if you’ve looked at lots of gpt4 examples. For example, it can do scientific thinking if you specifically ask it to, and it can reason about totally new situations outside of the training data based on generalizable models of reality it creates to predict training data. If you are certain these lim…

The article was clearly written by someone who hasn't used GPT-4 extensively. "Current methods will not achieve AGI unless fundamental algorithmic innovations are introduced that enable AI to ask and answer questions of why." This is complete nonsense. GPT-4 is already close to being able to do basically everything. All you need is the obvious improvements - better prompts, multi-shotting, bigger context, and access…

"Close to being able to do basically everything"

A bit vague, no?

Post reply on HN