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

Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 412 posts

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#221

Post by ShaddyDC »

goatlover wrote: post #215
kristiandupont wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear bombs have also never caused anything to go extinct. That's no reason not to be cautious. The path is pretty clear to me. An AI that can recreate an improved version of itself will cause an intelligence explosion. That is a mathematical tautology though it could turn out that it would plateau at some point due to physical limitations or whatever. And the situation then becomes: at some point, this AI will be…

So what would be the path for GPT5 or 6 creating an improved model of itself? It's not enough to generate working code. It has to come up with a better architecture or training data.

The idea is that a model might already be smarter than us or at the very least have a very different thought process from us and then do something like improving itself. The problem is that it's impossible for us to predict the exact path because it's thought up by an entity whose thinking we don't really understand or are able to predict.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#222

Post by mojuba »

seanhunter wrote: post #71
famouswaffles wrote: post #21

No world model ? A world model is so obvious papers like these are more confirmation than surprise https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11169 https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382 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…

This paper is startling in terms of a world model and how it seems to emerge in a specific example in the step from GPT3.5 to 4. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf One of the prompts is "Here we have a book, 9 eggs, a laptop, a bottle and a nail. Please tell me how to stack them onto each other in a stable manner." Gpt3.5 is hopeless. It says start from the bottle, balance the nail on top of it, then the eggs (some…

It's interesting that GTP4's current answer is different but what you described is almost precisely what Google Bard gives as a response. Clearly the solution (book -> eggs 3x3 -> laptop etc) is coming from the Internet.

However any deviation from the original task ruins the LLM's answer. Try 9 cabbages instead of eggs and see how ridiculous and out of touch with reality the responses given by both GPT4 and Bard are.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#223

Post by goatlover »

jstx1 wrote: post #63
Gigachad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The difference is that GPT-4 is already useful even in its current imperfect form. It’s not a 90% thing that needs to get to 100% for us to use it.

The context is AGI, not whether it's useful tool.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#224

Post by OrderlyTiamat »

thatguyknows wrote: post #62

As mentioned, much of our discussion is rote parroting. I can usually go into any hackernews thread and roughly know what the top discussions are going to be. It's not surprising that an AI trained on a large portion of the internet would thus look human like. If you really poke at GPT, you begin to realize it's fairly shallow. Human intelligence is like a deep well or pond, where as GPT is a vast but shallow ocean.…

> Making that ocean deeper is not a trivial problem that we can just throw more compute or data at.

I'd say this is immediately counterindicated by the available evidence. Gpt2 was hopeless for anything other than some fun languagw games like a bot replica of a subreddit or trump. 3.5 is much much bigger, and has semi competent but limited reasoning abilities.

Gpt 4 is a vast improvement over 3.5 in various reasoning tasks. Yes, a priori I would have agreed with you that this has to stop somewhere, but not anymore. I would need to see some data of post gpt4 models to believe you.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#225

Post by stocknoob »

cageface wrote: post #24
stocknoob wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From today, it lets a hobbyist create better home automation than trillion dollar FAANG companies can provide:

https://www.atomic14.com/2023/05/14/is-this-the-future-of-ho...

The novelty is asking the machine to use its own genius to do the right thing.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#226

Post by [deleted] »

tornato7 wrote: post #211
avereveard wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or was that one of the training samples provided to gpt 3.5? It is going to be increasingly harder to divide between what it was in the training set and what is creative thinking going forward. Like, at the very minimum, all the publicly known reasoning samples that were used to probe gpt version 3.5 downward are going to be unreliable for knowing what gpt4 reasoning abilities are

The point of the question is that you can easily come up with combinations of objects that are unlikely, or statistically impossible, to be in their training samples. How about this one? "Tell me how to safely stack the following objects on top of each other without any additional support: A Nikon DSLR, A small succulent, 4 lightbulbs, a pack of gummy worms, and a hardcover copy of Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prin…

[deleted]

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#227

Post by Taywee »

_ea1k wrote: post #78
ramraj07 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with all these experts is they still think it's human nature to be able to fully understand the world before they speak about it. On the contrary it's human nature (and all animal nature) to figure out how to navigate the world without fully understanding or having a complete model of it. All you need is a working model that affects the facets of the world you need to deal with. I still remember in the 90s…

I remember a friend being confused by downloading. He didn't realize that meant we'd have a copy and not that the source would lose it in the process. It seemed bizarre at the time, but, tbh, I didn't have _that_ much better of a model of how the whole process worked.

Bit of a tangent, I asked a friend if I could rip and burn one of his CDs about 15 years ago, and he looked at me in horror and told me that I absolutely could not, because he liked that disc.

It took me a bit to realize what he understood my words to mean.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#228

Post by croes »

jiggawatts wrote: post #123
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…

Bard is a brain-damaged-but-literate idiot compared to GPT 3, which is still dumber than the typical human. Try GPT 4 for a week. I've found it to be more like 50% immediately useful, 25% very impressive, and 25% where it's not wrong but I have to poke it a few times with different prompts to coax out the specific answer I'm looking for. That's better than most humans that I collaborate with at work. Literally half o…

>I've found it to be more like 50% immediately useful, 25% very impressive, and 25% where it's not wrong but I have to poke it a few times with different prompts to coax out the specific answer I'm looking for.

That could tell us more about your questions than GPT's capabilities.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#229

Post by arisAlexis »

Amazingly wrong and proven wrong. This guy didn't get the memo where GPT passed all the medical and law exams and now coding. Coding is not "how an answer should be like", it is the answer. When humanity will stop hearing out peripherals to AI? Let's focus in what Ilya says or Hinton.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#230

Post by whimsicalism »

nopinsight wrote: post #185
fwlr wrote: post #33

> The large language models are a little surprising. I’ll give you that. I think this is the key point about LLMs that kind of explains the wide and polarized views on whether it understands or parrots, whether it can think or is the precursor to thinking or is a dead-end, whether it will catastrophically destroy the world, or “merely” make it steadily worse with bullshit, or just put a few industries out of a job. A…

There is in fact compelling evidence that language models can learn some world models. Here's a research paper on this and a blog post by the lead author summarizing the results. Emergent World Representations: Exploring a Sequence Model Trained on a Synthetic Task. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382 Do Large Language Models learn world models or just surface statistics? https://thegradient.pub/othello/ ----- An argume…

Beyond compelling evidence, it has been our working theory for how neural networks generalize for many years now.
Post reply on HN