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

GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

bsky.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 339 posts

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#311

Post by briangriffinfan »

dwaltrip wrote: post #62
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's the entire architecture of the model. There's no real reasoning. It seems that reasoning is just a feedback loop on top of existing autocompletion. It's really disingenuous for the industry to call warming tokens for output, "reasoning," as if some autocomplete before more autocomplete is all we needed to solve the issue of consciousness. Edit: Letter frequency apparently has just become another scripted out…

Please define “real reasoning”? Where is the distinction coming from?

In my personal opinion it is reasonable to define "reasoning" as requiring sentience.

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#312

Post by alternatex »

jcgrillo wrote: post #45
axdsk wrote: post #3

“It’s like talking to a PhD level expert” -Sam Altman https://www.youtube.com/live/0Uu_VJeVVfo?si=PJGU-MomCQP1tyPk

There must be smart people at openai who believe in what they're doing and absolutely cringe whenever this clown opens his mouth... like, I hope?

They believe in waiting for their stock to vest, just as anyone else in their uniquely fortunate position would.

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#314

Post by smsm42 »

alternatex wrote: post #312
jcgrillo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There must be smart people at openai who believe in what they're doing and absolutely cringe whenever this clown opens his mouth... like, I hope?

They believe in waiting for their stock to vest, just as anyone else in their uniquely fortunate position would.

I mean if I were promised a "never-have-to-work-ever-again" amount of money in exchange for doing what I'd love to do anyway, and which I think is a working thing, and tolerating the CEO publicly proclaiming some exaggerated bullshit about it (when nobody asks my opinion of it anyway), I'd probably take it.

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#315

Post by mdp2021 »

vidarh wrote: post #307
mdp2021 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given we have examples of models that handles The suggestions come from the failures, not from the success stories. > what you mean with "architecturally all checks are implemented and mandated" That NN-models have an explicit module which works as a conscious mind and does lucid ostensive reasoning ("pointing at things") reliably respected in their conclusion. That module must be stress-tested and proven as reliab…

> The suggestions come from the failures, not from the success stories. That thinking is flawed. The successes conclusively proves that the issue isn't systemic because there is a solution. > That NN-models have an explicit module which works as a conscious mind and does lucid ostensive reasoning ("pointing at things") reliably respected in their conclusion. Well, this isn't how LLMs work. > That module must be stres…

> The successes ... proves that the issue isn't systemic because there is a solution

The failures prove the possibility of the user not meeting said solution. The solution will have to be explicit, because we need to know if (practically) and how (scientifically) it works. And said solution will have to be convincing as working on all branches of the general problem, of which "not really counting" is just a hint - "not properly handling mental object" is what we fear, the «suggestion of a systemic issue» I mentioned.

> Well, this isn't how LLMs work

Yes, and that is an issue, because using implementation of deliriousness is an issue. They must be fixed - we need the real thing.

> Humans aren't reliable. You're setting the bar at a level well beyond what is necessary

The flaws met in humans prove nothing since the start ("My cousin speaks just like Eliza" // "Well don't ask her then"; "The Nobel prize failed" // "And it still remains a better consultant than others" etc.).

We implement automated versions of the qualities only incidentally found in humans - that's just because tools are created to enhance the problem solving practices we already tackled with what we had.

And in this case (LLMs), there are qualities found in nature that are not there and must be implemented not to have as tools the implementation of psychiatric cases: foremostly here, the conscious (as opposed to the intuitive unconscious).

> and almost certainly beyond what is possible

It's necessary. And I do not see what justified doubts about the possibility (already that we implemented the symbolic well before NNs, or that in early NNs the problem of the implementation of deterministic logic was crucial...). We are dealing with black boxes, we plainly have to understand them as required and perfection (complete) them.

> what the optimal organisation is

There are clear hints for that. The absence of a "complete" theory of mind is not a stopper - features to be implemented are clear to us.

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#316

Post by mdp2021 »

skeledrew wrote: post #302
mdp2021 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given a token history and patterns in their training data. If you want to describe that as fully intelligent No, I would call (an easy interpretation of) that an implementation of unintelligence. Following patterns is what an hearsay machine does. The architecture you describe at the "token prediction" level collides with an architecture in which ideas get related with better justifications than frequent co-occurra…

> Following patterns is what an hearsay machine does. That's also how the brain works, at least partially. Primary differences are it takes and processes (trains itself on) raw sensory data instead of character tokens, and it continually does so for every conscious moment from at least birth until death.

> how the brain works, at least partially

With the difference, which have us go back to the original point, that the human mind has a crucial property of going beyond "pattern-based" intuition and check mental items lucidly and consciously.

> and it continually does so

It also persistently evaluates consciously and "store" and "learn" (which must be noted because it is the second main thing that LLMs don't do, after the problem of going past intuition).

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#317

Post by Kim_Bruning »

exasperaited wrote: post #47
ck2 wrote: post #30

The technical explanations to why this happens with strawberry, blueberry and similar is a great way to teach people how LLM works (and not work) https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/27/why-ai-cant-spell-strawber... https://arbisoft.com/blogs/why-ll-ms-can-t-count-the-r-s-in-... https://www.runpod.io/blog/llm-tokenization-limitations

When Minsky and Papert showed that the perceptron couldn't learn XOR, it contributed to wiping the neural network off the map for decades. It seems no amount of demonstrating fundamental flaws in this system that should have been solved by all the new improved "reasoning" works anymore. People are willing to call these "trick questions", as if they are disingenuous, when they are discovered in the wild through ordina…

I had to look this up. This proof only applies to single layer perceptrons, right?

And once they had the multi-layer solution, that unblocked the road and lead to things like LLMs

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#318

Post by jcgrillo »

alternatex wrote: post #312
jcgrillo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There must be smart people at openai who believe in what they're doing and absolutely cringe whenever this clown opens his mouth... like, I hope?

They believe in waiting for their stock to vest, just as anyone else in their uniquely fortunate position would.

What good is OpenAI stock? Is anyone buying it?

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#319

Post by mikestorrent »

jiggawatts wrote: post #67
mikestorrent wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great idea. Like, if someone asked me to count the number of B's in your paragraph, I'd yeet it through `grep -o 'B' file.txt | wc -l` or similar, why would I sit there counting it by hand? As a human, if you give me a number on screen like 100000000, I can't be totally sure if that's 100 Million or 1 Billion without getting close and counting carefully. Should ought have my glasses. Mouse pointer helps som…

> As a human, if you give me a number on screen like 100000000, I can't be totally sure if that's 100 Million or 1 Billion without getting close and counting carefully. I become mildly infuriated when computers show metrics (or any large number) without thousands separators. Worse still, I often see systems that mix units, don’t right-align, and occasionally blend in a few numbers with decimals together with whole nu…

Right. So if we have these kinds of cognitive blindness and just accept it as status quo, and when necessary we make up for it with tooling... it's not unreasonable to assume that AI will also have to do this

Re: GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?"

#320

Post by throwaway1004 »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #202
amalcon wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Searle seems to have been right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room (Not that I am the first to notice this either)

From the wikipedia article: > applying syntactic rules without any real understanding or thinking It makes one wonder what comprises 'real understanding'. My own position is that we, too, are applying syntactic rules, but with an incomprehensibly vast set of inputs. While the AI takes in text, video, and sound, we take in inputs all the way down to the cellular level or beyond.

I don't think you're on the right track.

When someone says to me "Can you pass me my tea?", my mind instantly builds a simulated model of the past, present, and future which takes a massive amount of information, going far beyond merely understanding the syntax and intent of the request:

>I am aware of the steaming mug on the table

>I instantly calculate that yes, in fact, I am capable of passing it

>I understand that it is an implied request

>I run a threat assessment

>I am running simulated fluid mechanics to predict the correct speed and momentum to use to avoid harm, visualising several failure conditions I want to avoid (if I'm focused and present)

>I am aware of the consequences of boiling water on skin (I am particularly averse to this because of an early childhood experience, an advantage in my career as a line cook)

>my hands are shaky so I decide to stabilise with my other hand, but I'll have to use the leathery tips of my guitar-playing left hand only, and not for too long, otherwise I'll be scalded

>(enumerable other simulated, predictive processes running in parallel, in the blink of an eye)

"Of course, my pleasure. Would you like milk?"

Post reply on HN