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

191–200 of 213 posts

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

#191

Post by Jensson »

scotty79 wrote: post #187
Jensson wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There are games with procedurally generated animals glued together from parts exactly like that.

With algorithms made by humans to make the composites reasonable. And, yes there are such games, I just posted screenshots of it since people had a lot of freedom to make their own aliens there that doesn't look like what you normally expect.

That game was made by humans coding in a lot of different kinds of movements for a lot of different kinds of shapes. Those shapes and movements doesn't exist in reality, they imagined something completely alien and did it and made it able to move.

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

Humans doesn't split deform and glue randomly, they do it in interesting ways to build towards things that are totally different from the starting point.

What current AI can't do is exactly that, build towards something novel. They just glue together things randomly, or they compose them in similar ways as existing things. They aren't capable of iterating towards something novel and cool like humans as they are today.

For example, lets say a human sculpts an entirely new shape using a leathery substance, that fits in what I described above, you would just say "Oh, but that is just a known thing in a new shape, not creative, just using old things!!!". That is just a nonsense argument, not sure what you are trying to say with that, I assumed you had a reasonable definition that didn't include everything, but as it were you did include everything into it making your whole argument complete void.

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

#192

Post by davidmurdoch »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #188
davidmurdoch wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Gemini. I asked it to remember my name. It said it'd remember. My next question was asking it what my name was. It responded that it can't connect to my workspace account. It did this twice.

I asked it what was in a picture. It was a blue stuffed animal. It described it as such. I asked it what kind of animal it thought it was supposed to be. It responded with "a clown fish because it has a black and white checkerboard pattern". It was an octopus (at least it got a sea creature?).

I asked it for directions to the closest gas station. It wanted to take me to one over a mile away when there was one across the street. I asked why it didn't suggest the one nearest to me. It responded with "I assumed proximity was the primary criteria" and then apologized for calling me names (it didn't).

This model is bonkers right now.

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

#193

Post by [deleted] »

logicallee wrote: post #69
madsbuch wrote: post #17

There is an immensely strong dogma that, to my best knowledge, is not founded in any science or philosophy: First we must lay down certain axioms (smart word for the common sense/ground rules we all agree upon and accept as true). One of such would be the fact that currently computers do not really understand words. ... The author is at least honest about his assumptions. Which I can appreciate. Most other people jus…

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…

[deleted]

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

#194

Post by arolihas »

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,…

Some of us care about actual understanding and intelligence. Other people just want something useful enough that can mimic it. I don't know why he feels the need to be an ass about it though.

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

#195

Post by mirekrusin »

vasco wrote: post #88
mirekrusin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also you can't cp human brain.

We can clone humans at current level of technology, otherwise there wouldn't be agreements about not doing it due to the ethical implications. Of course its just reproducing the initial hardware and not the memory contents or the changes in connections that happen at runtime.

Well, we know how to make kids, but then cp takes 20 years and rarely works.

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

#196

Post by scotty79 »

Jensson wrote: post #191
scotty79 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There are games with procedurally generated animals glued together from parts exactly like that. With algorithms made by humans to make the composites reasonable. And, yes there are such games, I just posted screenshots of it since people had a lot of freedom to make their own aliens there that doesn't look like what you normally expect. That game was made by humans coding in a lot of different kinds of movements f…

> With algorithms made by humans to make the composites reasonable

You definitely not need a human for that. ChatGPT creates a prose and poetry (let alone imagined aliens) that are reasonable composites.

> "Oh, but that is just a known thing in a new shape, not creative, just using old things!!!"

I'm not saying humans are not creative. I'm saying that's exactly what creation is splitting, deforming and glueing known shapes. And AI does the same. I have no idea why do you believe there's anything more to creativity than doing just that, to create something more or less accidently interesting or appealing. And why only humans can create such things in this manner. Despite clear evidence of AI generated art being interesting and appealing to large number of people.

Sounds like a religious stance.

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

#197

Post by bamboozled »

Jensson wrote: post #146
bamboozled wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you argue I’m smuggling ”enjoyable” experiences into the argument when you yourself admit play is also Enjoyable. What is the actual difference? Even enjoying a cup of coffee can be considered play if I put the coffee in my mouth and play around and pay careful attention to he aromas a texture. They’re one and the same thing. It’s a matter of language that makes them appear to be different things. Taking a di…

> How can you argue I’m smuggling ”enjoyable” experiences into the argument when you yourself admit play is also Enjoyable Play is enjoyable, not all enjoyable things are play. You started to add other enjoyable things into the argument about play. > They’re one and the same thing No they are not. Play is typically seen as what children do, or playing sports, or playing a game, or a competition. You can read the defi…

You’re hung up on language in my opinion and it was the inspiration for my original comment. There is a gradient between playing and just doing something enjoyable. It’s not a binary thing.

I do woodwork because I find it enjoyable but it’s also play time when I’m in my shop.

Language has limits. I bet you there are cultures which don’t distinguish between play and enjoyable activities and then we wouldn’t be sending each other links to merriam Webster.

Btw I don't disagree people learn from play, I just don't think it's the end goal of play.

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

#198

Post by avereveard »

shinycode wrote: post #184
avereveard wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The absence of general intelligence in this iteration of the technology isn't a general principle about agi

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

#199

Post by shinycode »

avereveard wrote: post #198
shinycode wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The absence of general intelligence in this iteration of the technology isn't a general principle about agi

Absolutely. We’ll see what’s going on when AGI comes up. Maybe I won’t be alive by then so no need to stress right now.

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

#200

Post by bamboozled »

glenstein wrote: post #110
bamboozled wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans spend their lifetimes training their brain I don't think this is true personally, ideally as children, we spend out time having fun and learning about the world is a side effect. This borg like thinking applied to intelligence because we have LLMs is unusual to me. I learned surfing through play and enjoyment, not through training like a robot. We can train for something with intention, but I think that is mos…

>we spend out time having fun and learning about the world is a side effect I think the part of this that resonates as most true to me is how this reframes learning in a way that tracks truth more closely. It's not all the time, 100% of the time, it's in fits and starts, its opportunistic, and there are long intervals that are not active learning. But the big part where I would phrase things differently is in the ins…

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that learning isn't part of play, I just don't believe the end goal of life is to "train". I think if you're an AI researcher it would make sense that life is about training. However I think it's just fashion.

I always think if we could built an AGI, it would probably enjoy some form of play too. It would need to invent some level of excitement, else it would just be a machine with no ambition, no inspiration.

Post reply on HN