Rodney Brooks on GPT-4 • Hacker News Board

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#21

Post by famouswaffles » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:46 AM UTC

No world model ?

A world model is so obvious papers like these are more confirmation than surprise

There a certain sentiment that AGI however you wish to define it won't infact be a "We'll know it when we see it" situation but rather a "AGI will arrive long before consensus reaches its AGI". LLMs have made me believe this will 100% be the case, either way.

It's one thing to argue over things we can't evaluate even now but man the 100th "They can't reason!" every week is pretty funny when you can basically take your pick of reasonong type - Algorithmic, Casual, Inference, Analogical and read a paper showing strong performance.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09196

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00050

https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.02329

https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09066

People refuse to see even what is staring right at them.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#22

Post by nextworddev » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:47 AM UTC

bugglebeetle wrote: post #18

I already calmed down because it’s quite obvious that OpenAI is engaging in textbook, bait-and-switch startup tactics. GPT-4 performance has noticeably taken a nosedive since its initial release and most recently degraded further in advance of the iOS app release.

I noticed that performance in coding tasks is decreasing while latency is improving. So there’s that.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#23

Post by wewtyflakes » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:48 AM UTC

grugagag wrote: post #9

RC_ITR wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember when the Internet was new and no-one believed anything on it? Then, learning what to believe became a marketable skill for many people? Then society fundamentally changed because not everyone learned that skill? This is just that again. Gen Z will joke about their millennial/Gen X bosses believing anything the AI tells them and it will probably lead to some sort of mainstream conspiracy that Jackie O herself…

> Remember when the Internet was new and no-one believed anything on it? Is this true?

This is true; it was a almost a meme before memes existed, as to say "I saw it on the internet so it must be true!", as a way to teasingly highlight how non-credible it was seen at the time.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#24

Post by cageface » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:48 AM UTC

stocknoob wrote: post #10

sheeshkebab wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime I ask these things something (bard, gpt etc), 33% of the answer is genius, 33% misleading garbage, 33% filler stuff that’s neither here or there The problem is distinguishing between these parts requires me to be be an expert in the area I’m inquiring about - and then why the heck do I need to ask some idiot bot for answers to questions that I already know an answer to? I don’t know who finds these things use…

Yeah, I don’t think a machine that generates novel genius ideas 1 out of 3 times is useful either. Creating a new idea is exactly as hard as curating them.

What novel genius ideas has the machine created so far?

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#25

Post by Gigachad » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:49 AM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #8

It is a disruption. It now has more wood behind the arrow. You can’t ignore it just because it lies today for some inputs.

Feels like there have been a lot of previous technologies where the last 10% was far more complex than the first 90%. Self driving cars were pretty much solved a decade ago, and yet we still aren't there yet. VR was pretty much working and ready to change the world a decade ago, and we still aren't there yet.

So it's hard to tell if this is an iphone moment where it just rockets off in to space and changes the world. Or if it's something that will always be "not quite there yet"

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#26

Post by iseanstevens » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:50 AM UTC

stocknoob wrote: post #10

sheeshkebab wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime I ask these things something (bard, gpt etc), 33% of the answer is genius, 33% misleading garbage, 33% filler stuff that’s neither here or there The problem is distinguishing between these parts requires me to be be an expert in the area I’m inquiring about - and then why the heck do I need to ask some idiot bot for answers to questions that I already know an answer to? I don’t know who finds these things use…

Yeah, I don’t think a machine that generates novel genius ideas 1 out of 3 times is useful either. Creating a new idea is exactly as hard as curating them.

Sarcasm?

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#27

Post by throwaway892238 » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:50 AM UTC

softwaredoug wrote: post #3

Annoyed at all these N=1 articles from prominent thinkers about this stuff. Especially from scientists - can these sorts of folks please more carefully quantify, how often it’s “wrong” and then from that decide whether or not to “calm down”. Right now I suspect we hear from the outliers on both ends of the spectrum here. People who either see AGI happening tomorrow and the more dismissive crowd. But aside from what w…

> I suspect we hear from the outliers on both ends of the spectrum

Welcome to publishing. Nothing gets widely published unless it's clickbait. Something you vehemently agree with you'll click on to see that it validates your opinion, and something you vehemently oppose you'll furiously read to find out how stupid they are. Nobody reads fair and balanced arguments that solely come with concrete evidence; they're rare and boring.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#28

Post by teleforce » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:51 AM UTC

mrmincent wrote: post #13

I get why AI people are at pains to say that GPT-* isn’t AI, and that agi is still a long, difficult way off, I do understand that the distinction is important. But ChatGPT has become such a useful tool to help explain a concept or to filter thoughts through I don’t really care if it’s proper AI or just playing pretend. Google search gives me pretty useless results these days, forums are slow and inconsistent to resp…

This is exactly my thoughts and feelings after more than 20 years of Googling except that Google is largely still useful as it is. Sooner or later, however, most of the people will use ChatGPT or similar services as a better replacement for Google search or Google on steroids. Before the advent of ChatGPT researchers especially, have been clamoring for better Google search with more contexts, intuitive and relevant feedbacks.

With the new ChatGPT (Plus) features introduction for examples web online search and plug-ins, ChatGPT has becoming a very powerful and viable better alternative to Google search.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#29

Post by ekianjo » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:51 AM UTC

yberreby wrote: post #14

sheeshkebab wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime I ask these things something (bard, gpt etc), 33% of the answer is genius, 33% misleading garbage, 33% filler stuff that’s neither here or there The problem is distinguishing between these parts requires me to be be an expert in the area I’m inquiring about - and then why the heck do I need to ask some idiot bot for answers to questions that I already know an answer to? I don’t know who finds these things use…

> The problem is distinguishing between these parts requires me to be be an expert in the area I’m inquiring about - and then why the heck do I need to ask some idiot bot for answers to questions that I already know an answer to? Because it can be significantly faster to check something for correctness than to produce it? More so when the correctness check can itself be automated to some extent.

> ecause it can be significantly faster to check something for correctness than to produce it

Erm no There are many things that cant be easily checked especially if you dont know the topic well

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#30

Post by sanderjd » Sun, May 21, 2023, 2:52 AM UTC

grugagag wrote: post #9

RC_ITR wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember when the Internet was new and no-one believed anything on it? Then, learning what to believe became a marketable skill for many people? Then society fundamentally changed because not everyone learned that skill? This is just that again. Gen Z will joke about their millennial/Gen X bosses believing anything the AI tells them and it will probably lead to some sort of mainstream conspiracy that Jackie O herself…

> Remember when the Internet was new and no-one believed anything on it? Is this true?

Yes. "Anyone can write anything on there! There's no way to trust it." About halfway through high school they started letting us cite websites, and it was a big deal and considered very forward thinking.