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

GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

lukebechtel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 338 posts

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#271

Post by testrun »

vidarh wrote: post #238
testrun wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy, nuclear power, calculus, dna helix, x-ray, written word, relativity comes to mind for starters. There are millions others.

Care to elaborate how any of those involved humans inventing something that wasn't a combination of synthesis with a stochastic process filling in the gaps? E.g the discovery of x-rays took over a century of applying small iterations to established processes to accumulate data. There was no big, sudden leap of insight there.

How is democracy a stochastic process?

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#272

Post by vidarh »

testrun wrote: post #271
vidarh wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate how any of those involved humans inventing something that wasn't a combination of synthesis with a stochastic process filling in the gaps? E.g the discovery of x-rays took over a century of applying small iterations to established processes to accumulate data. There was no big, sudden leap of insight there.

How is democracy a stochastic process?

Not what I meant. Talking about the process of the inventions, not the inventions themselves.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#273

Post by testrun »

vidarh wrote: post #243
testrun wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relativity for instance. New does not exclude dependencies or partial predecessors. New is something that is totally different from before.

Relativity comes from exploring the problem of the incompatibilities of pre-existing theories and experiments. I don't see anything that suggests it requires anything more than synthesis and a stochastic process to explore the gaps and inconsistencies. In terms of timing, they're the culmination of decades of pre-existing work, with e.g. the Lorentz transformations named the same year Einstein published his paper on…

Lorentz transformation is not relativity. I think we might have a problem with definition and understanding what we try to accomplish with this discussion. If I understand you correctly, then stochastic processes will create an all knowing environment if you give it enough time. I think that is false. Most of the time it is true, but there are points in time where there is a leap in knowledge that are not reachable by just iteration.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#274

Post by moonchrome »

visarga wrote: post #71
moonchrome wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you get access to singularity level AGI you would have no incentive to cooperate with other people and a strong incentive in preventing others accessing it. Society is a result of cooperation outperforming individuals. With AGI others are just a risk factor. "Open"AI is already beginning to exhibit this.

> Society is a result of cooperation outperforming individuals. With AGI others are just a risk factor. But even without AI others are still a risk factor. AI could also act as a mediator between conflicting parties.

But that's the point - benefits of cooperation outweigh the risks and we have laws/ethics/drives to stabilize the system based on this.

If you have AGI then others are just a threat and can offer nothing you can't get from AGI.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#275

Post by famouswaffles »

Jensson wrote: post #49
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yeah, but colloquially when people start using the term "stochastic parrot" they're referring to something far stupider. From a Technical and pedantic standpoint it could be said ALL intelligence is isomorphic to a stochastic parrot I mean that's somewhat his point (if I understand him correctly). All intelligence could effectively be described as a "stochastic parrot" as a result, calling something a "stochastic p…

A person who does understand how new technology works will see it as a dumb contraption. A person who doesn't understand how it works will see it as magic.

Lol no. That's just what you tell yourself to feel smart.

They're are many who understand that don't think of it as dumb.

"I think GPT-3 is artificial general intelligence, AGI. I think GPT-3 is as intelligent as a human. And I think that it is probably more intelligent than a human in a restricted way… in many ways it is more purely intelligent than humans are. I think humans are approximating what GPT-3 is doing, not vice versa.”

— Connor Leahy, co-founder of EleutherAI, creator of GPT-J (November 2020)

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#276

Post by whoomp12342 »

awestroke wrote: post #101
tjr wrote: post #47

So I asked it to design a programming language that combined the best elements of Scheme with the best elements of Python (leaving it to decide which elements are best). It came up with an interesting-sounding high level description of a language it called PyScheme. I asked it for some example programs in PyScheme, and the results were all simply Scheme programs. I asked it to write a tutorial on programming with PyS…

Sounds like it performed wonderfully. It included the best parts of python (there are none)

negative indexing!

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#277

Post by runnerup »

xlii wrote: post #170
yowzadave wrote: post #141

Last year, when Blake Lemoine was fired by Google for claiming his AI was sentient, a lot of people on this website sensibly noted that the danger of these chatbots was not that they were sentient, but that average people could easily be tricked into thinking that they were. And now here we are: it seems we tech people are every bit as susceptible to this kind of thinking as the average joes we looked down on. Actual…

Well put. I share the sentiment. I used GPT-3/3.5/4 for multiple tasks and I never found it useful. It just feels… average. It can “answer” many questions correctly but that’s only on the data set it’s been training on. I asked it to solve Elixir issues, write Elisp snippets, figure out why my Rust code was complaining about lifetimes and even went for easy mode and asked for JavaScript code. Only JavaScript (very po…

> I used GPT-3/3.5/4 for multiple tasks and I never found it useful.

I’ve found it useful for drafting cover letters (I just need to do final edits).

I’ve also found it useful as an adjunct to google when I’m searching for niche things like “Luxury resorts with activities for my dog and lots of off-leash trails”.

So far that’s it, but it does seem like a useful addition to Google search for super niche things. Obviously it hallucinates a lot on these niche edge cases but it gives some great starting points.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#278

Post by vidarh »

testrun wrote: post #273
vidarh wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relativity comes from exploring the problem of the incompatibilities of pre-existing theories and experiments. I don't see anything that suggests it requires anything more than synthesis and a stochastic process to explore the gaps and inconsistencies. In terms of timing, they're the culmination of decades of pre-existing work, with e.g. the Lorentz transformations named the same year Einstein published his paper on…

Lorentz transformation is not relativity. I think we might have a problem with definition and understanding what we try to accomplish with this discussion. If I understand you correctly, then stochastic processes will create an all knowing environment if you give it enough time. I think that is false. Most of the time it is true, but there are points in time where there is a leap in knowledge that are not reachable b…

> Lorentz transformation is not relativity.

Not the point. The point being that there was a number of precursors, not some sudden insight from nothing.

> If I understand you correctly, then stochastic processes will create an all knowing environment if you give it enough time. I think that is false. Most of the time it is true, but there are points in time where there is a leap in knowledge that are not reachable by just iteration.

This presumes that there's no element of randomness in that stochastic process, which is not a sound assumption.

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#279

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Jensson wrote: post #191
RHSman2 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is when does guessing become a moot point? AlphaGo guessed it’s way to being the best. Can something guess it’s way to evolving into a less guessy thing? I think so. Look at us? I am aware of how it works and used to be ‘it’s ok, it won’t happen’ but now I am actually pretty concerned. We think GAI as the thing but there maybe a reality that doesn’t require full GAI to completely unhinge us. I mean, what…

> AlphaGo guessed it’s way to being the best. No it didn't, AlphaGo was backed by an algorithm that perfectly understood go and used that to train itself to play go better. That is a completely different situation. If you tried to make a go engine that only tried to replicate old moves then you'd have a hard time making it perform valid moves. ChatGPT is like such an engine and we just made it perform valid moves mos…

That would be an interesting experiment. Take something like ChatGPT, train it to play tic-tac-toe and reversi and chess and go. Tic-tac-toe it will probably be unbeatable. How does it do at chess and go? Is there a level of difficulty of the game where its ability to master it tops out?

Can ChatGPT(-ish), trained on a ton of games, beat AlphaGo?

Re: GPT-4 Designed a Programming Language

#280

Post by AnimalMuppet »

HervalFreire wrote: post #11

quotation from the link: "LLMs in the GPT family have read every programming language in the world, billions of times. It's been known for some time that these agents can write small snippets of code with some limited success. However, to my knowledge, none of these agents have ever been asked to make their own programming language. This type of task is a bit more complex, and requires a bit more creativity and fores…

> I'd argue that remixing is the fundamental force of creativity.

Yes, but. Creativity - real creativity - is in choosing the right pieces to remix out of the immense amount of what's available. And, perhaps just as important, choosing what not to put in the remix.

There's an immense difference between a meal prepared by a good chef, and throwing random ingredients in a blender. They both remix. But they are not remotely the same.

Post reply on HN