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

Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

grski.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 213 posts

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#181

Post by logicallee »

shkkmo wrote: post #138
logicallee wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the most incredible coincidence. Three million paying OpenAI customers spend $20 per month (compare: NetFlix standard: $15.49/month) thinking they're chatting with something in natural language that actually understands what they're saying, but it's just statistics and they're only getting high-probability responses without any understanding behind it! Can you imagine spending a full year showing up to talk to a…

Maps are useful, but they don't understand the geography they describe. LLMs are maps of semantic structures and as such, can absolutely be useful without having an understanding of that which they map. If LLMs were capable of understanding, they wouldn't be so easy to trick on novel problems.

> If LLMs were capable of understanding, they wouldn't be so easy to trick on novel problems.

Got it, so an LLM only understands my words if it has full mastery of every new problem domain within a few thousand milliseconds of the first time the problem has been posed in the history of the world.

Thanks for letting me know what it means to understand words, here I was thinking it meant translating them to the concepts the speaker intended.

Neat party trick to have a perfect map of all semantic structures and use it to trick users to get what they want through simple natural-language conversation, all without understanding the language at all.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#182

Post by CuriouslyC »

cheema33 wrote: post #173
CuriouslyC wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing apples and oranges. Humans who spend a long time doing inference have not fully learned the thing being inferred - unlike LLMs, when we are undertrained, rather than a huge spike in error rate, we go slower. When humans are well trained, human inference absolutely destroys LLMs.

> When humans are well trained, human inference absolutely destroys LLMs. This isn't an apt comparison. You are comparing a human trained in a specific field to an LLM trained on everything. When an LLM is trained with a narrow focus as well, human brain cannot compete. See Garry Kasparov vs Deep Blue. And Deep Blue is very old tech.

1. Deep blue isn't a LLM. I don't care how well you train a LLM, it's not going to be more efficient than an optimally trained human, not even close. It's actually arrogant as hell to assume that we can achieve a higher level of energy efficiency than billions of years of evolution, particularly so early in the game. 2. Chess is a closed form system with a finite and relatively small number of position compared with the real world.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#183

Post by karmakaze »

cheema33 wrote: post #173
CuriouslyC wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing apples and oranges. Humans who spend a long time doing inference have not fully learned the thing being inferred - unlike LLMs, when we are undertrained, rather than a huge spike in error rate, we go slower. When humans are well trained, human inference absolutely destroys LLMs.

> When humans are well trained, human inference absolutely destroys LLMs. This isn't an apt comparison. You are comparing a human trained in a specific field to an LLM trained on everything. When an LLM is trained with a narrow focus as well, human brain cannot compete. See Garry Kasparov vs Deep Blue. And Deep Blue is very old tech.

Also DeepBlue isn't an ML it's an "expert system, relying upon rules and variables defined and fine-tuned by chess masters and computer scientists" from Wikipedia. AlphaGo (or AlphaGo Zero) would be a better example.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#184

Post by shinycode »

avereveard wrote: post #155
shinycode wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I input my comment in claude.ai, after refining the discussion with the other comments, Claude reached the conclusion : « In conclusion, describing current AI systems as "intelligent" is indeed debatable. They are more accurately described as highly advanced information processing and content generation systems based on statistical models. The term "artificial intelligence" could be considered more of a marketing ter…

you entered your bias in a statistical parrot, and received your bias back

There you close the debate. It’s a statistical parrot. No need to discuss about any emergence of anything or compare it to anything

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#185

Post by shkkmo »

logicallee wrote: post #181
shkkmo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maps are useful, but they don't understand the geography they describe. LLMs are maps of semantic structures and as such, can absolutely be useful without having an understanding of that which they map. If LLMs were capable of understanding, they wouldn't be so easy to trick on novel problems.

> If LLMs were capable of understanding, they wouldn't be so easy to trick on novel problems. Got it, so an LLM only understands my words if it has full mastery of every new problem domain within a few thousand milliseconds of the first time the problem has been posed in the history of the world. Thanks for letting me know what it means to understand words, here I was thinking it meant translating them to the concept…

> Got it, so an LLM only understands my words if it has full mastery of every new problem domain within a few thousand milliseconds of the first time the problem has been posed in the history of the world.

That's not what I said. Please try to have a good faith discussion. Sarcastically misrepresenting what I said does not contribute to a healthy discussion.

There have been plenty of examples of taking simple, easy, problems, and then presenting them in a novel way that doesn't occure in the training material, and having the LLM get the answer wrong.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#186

Post by logicallee »

shkkmo wrote: post #185
logicallee wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If LLMs were capable of understanding, they wouldn't be so easy to trick on novel problems. Got it, so an LLM only understands my words if it has full mastery of every new problem domain within a few thousand milliseconds of the first time the problem has been posed in the history of the world. Thanks for letting me know what it means to understand words, here I was thinking it meant translating them to the concept…

> Got it, so an LLM only understands my words if it has full mastery of every new problem domain within a few thousand milliseconds of the first time the problem has been posed in the history of the world. That's not what I said. Please try to have a good faith discussion. Sarcastically misrepresenting what I said does not contribute to a healthy discussion. There have been plenty of examples of taking simple, easy,…

Sounds like you want the LLM to get the answer right in all simple, easy cases before you will say it understands words. I hate to break it to you but people do not meet that standard either and misunderstand each other plenty. For three million paying customers, ChatGPT understands their questions well enough and they are happy to pay more than for any other widespread Internet service for the chance to ask it questions in natural language, and even though there is a free tier available with high amounts of free usage.

It is as though you said a dog couldn't really play chess if it plays legal moves all day every day from any position and for millions of people, but sometimes fails to see obvious mates in one in novel positions that never occur in the real world.

You're entitled to your own standard of what it means to understand words but for millions of people it's doing great at it.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#187

Post by scotty79 »

Jensson wrote: post #151
scotty79 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for providing examples of combinations of things already seen.

I was dumb to even try, you would just say basically "that is a combination of red green and blue dots in a new pattern, not really novel!" regardless what it was. The wealth of things you see around you doesn't exist in nature. Stick figures doesn't exist in nature, things in nature doesn't have black outlines yet we draw that everywhere in cartoons etc. Human have proven we have imagined many entirely novel things…

What is the reason that you believe computer wouldn't be able to make such Spore alien and it is somehow display of unique Human creativity? There are games with procedurally generated animals glued together from parts exactly like that.

Humans imagination can only split, deform and glue. Computer are perfectly capable of doing that.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#188

Post by EForEndeavour »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #150
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #53

I don't care. I've come to the conclusion that gpt and gemini and all the others are nothing but conversational search engines. They can give me ideas or point me in the right direction but so do regular search engines. I like the conversation ability but, in the end, I cannot trust their results and still have to research further to decide for myself if their results are valid.

Just started using Gemini and it has never been correct. Literally not once. It's is just slightly better than a markov chain.

Which model? And could you share an example of some of the things you've asked it and gotten wrong answers for?

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#189

Post by bufferoverflow »

cynusx wrote: post #31

The comparison doesn't really hold. He is comparing energy spend during inference in humans with energy spend during training in LLM's. Humans spend their lifetimes training their brain so one would have to sum up the total training time if you are going to compare it to the training time of LLM's. At age 30 the total energy use of the brain sums up to about 5000 Wh, which is 1440 times more efficient. But at age 30…

Also, human brains come pre-trained by billions of years of evolution. It doesn't start as a randomly-connected structure. It already knows how to breathe, how to swallow, how to lean new things.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#190

Post by EForEndeavour »

mirpa wrote: post #154
Kiro wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can ask ChatGPT extremely specific programming questions and get working code solving it. This is not something I can do with a search engine. Another thing a search engine cannot do that I use ChatGPT for on a daily basis is taking unstructured text and convert it into a specified JSON format.

> I can ask ChatGPT extremely specific programming questions and get working code solving it. I can do the opposite.

From my perspective, it's not useful to dwell on the fact that LLMs are often confidently wrong, or didn't nail a particular niche or edge-case question the first time, and discount the entire model class. That's expecting too much. Of course LLMs constantly don't help solve a given problem. The same is true for any other problem-solving approach.

The useful comparison is between how one would try to solve a problem before versus after the availability of LLM-powered tools. And in my experience, these tools represent a very effective alternative approach to sifting through docs or googling manually quote-enclosed phrases with site:stackoverflow.com that improves my ability to solve problems I care about.

Post reply on HN