341–350 of 523 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are using ChatGPT and observing it keep track of conversation state, so if you are going to claim it has no internal state you will need to be more precise in what you are saying, which I suppose is that the underlying neural network is not being updated as we talk to it? yet
The attention matrix/matrices are being updated as you talk to it, within the context window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Without this need to survive, there can be no motivation, and without motivation there can be no intent. I'm not sure that's as clear cut as you make it sound. For example curiocity could be a fine engine for motivation as well, even if you don't care if you'll survive or not.
I don't see why you think it would be easier to encode "curiosity" than "survival".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this kind of argument is making a similar mistake. In the same way that there's nothing fundamentally special about the computation human brains do, there's nothing fundamentally special about our "fitness function" (to reproduce). It's just hard coded, whereas GPT's is dictated. More or less anyway. Also our "fitness function" or motivations & goals aren't even that hard coded. You can easily modify them thr…
The argument is that LLMs don't have any motivations or goals, unless a human prompts them. They're not trying to stay alive or reproduce. They don't get hungry, feel pain or loneliness. They're just complex tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But out of all the programmers I know, there are only certain ones that are embracing it, and the rest are still stuck in "I tried it and the code wasn't exactly what I wanted - it's all hype" land. And I think for one of the reasons you say: programmers are vain and believe everything they do requires great intelligence. A lot are still missing the forest from the trees.
I think a lot of it is due to the unresolved legal questions. Basically nobody can use it professionally yet. As soon as that happens I expect it to become a standard tool. Although... on the other hand there are plenty of programmers that don't even use IDEs still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. One of the more interesting things about AI is how it forces humanity on a trip to consider what it means to be human. There is no soul, creativity or inspiration. There's only (very complex) agency. And that's completely fine.
There are deep philosophical implications, just not these. There has been a long history of reifying the behaviors of living things in general (e.g. vitalism) and humans in particular (e.g. dualism). The success of LLMs challenges a lot of philosophy dealing with what behaviors are and are not possible in the absence of these categorical districtions. I have had casual debates years ago, in which strong dualists asse…
Or maybe we will create a god.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I got on ChatGPT today. I assume it used GPT4: Prompt ChatGPT Actual Match 397,356 * 930,547 369,685,207,932 369,758,433,732 FALSE 36,330 * 26,951 979,458,630 979,129,830 FALSE 8,681 * 9,330 80,911,430 80,993,730 FALSE 278 * 903 250,734 251,034 FALSE 82 * 77 6,314 6,314 TRUE Edit: # of correct digits (counting from leftmost) only exceeds 3 on the smallest pair. It drops to two, as well, on the 3x3 set.
You probably used GPT-3.5. That said, I didn't manage to get GPT-4 to calculate 36,330 * 26,951 correctly. I suggested casting out 9s, casting out 11s, doing long multiplication, reversing the digits - nothing. I have a theory that it does arithmetic badly because the logic goes right-to-left, when LLMs write left-to-right. If the digits were to be reversed, it might not make as many mistakes. I ran out of attempts b…
Sometimes LLMs get math wrong because people got math wrong on the training data and so they match the error frequency (https://learnprompting.org/docs/basics/roles).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are they self-aware? Who tf knows? But they are reasoning through problems. We know. They are not self aware. They’re a matrix. They don’t have any internal state. Do not anthropomorphisize the notion of reasoning.
People are using ChatGPT and observing it keep track of conversation state, so if you are going to claim it has no internal state you will need to be more precise in what you are saying, which I suppose is that the underlying neural network is not being updated as we talk to it? yet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It feels more like smarter automation to me. Yep. Elevators used to be proof that machines can think. Then compilers, and chess, and go, and search, and … The problem with AI is that as soon as it works, we stop thinking about it as “artificial intelligence” and it becomes “just automation”. Then AI moves to the next goalpost.
The problem seems to be with defining good tests for intelligence. FWIW, because GPT4 answers have a detectable pattern, they should presumably fail the Turing test. At some level, intelligence requires logic, rationality, and conceptualization, all of which are topics which have evaded clear definition despite millennia of philosophy directly addressing the issues.
You’re demanding this because you aren’t comfortable with the implication that a computer can pass our existing tests for intelligence, so you rationalize that with the comforting thought that those tests were not meant to identify intelligence. Tests like the SAT or the bar exam or AP English. Or tests for theory of mind or common sense or logic. Those tests aren’t testing for ‘intelligence’ - they can’t be. Because a computer passed them.
It’s okay. We can make new tests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think algorithms can't be conscious? (Unless you believe in souls, that is..)
Because these algorithms just imitate specific output for a given input. However, they are so complex, that our brains are not able to distinguish their activity from a real consciousness in any way. If you believe that imitation process can have consciousness, then you might as well believe that a rock is conscious too. I don't believe in souls, but I do believe in qualia, that is subjective, conscious experience, s…