Live data from Hacker News

CheatGPT

blog.humphd.org

351–360 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#351
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22308071/what-is-the-dif... The difference between let and const is that once you bind a value/object to a variable using const, you can't reassign to that variable. In other words Example: const something = {}; something = 1; // Error. let somethingElse = {}; somethingElse = 100; // This is ok

Which is odd because in every other language that uses let (lisp, scheme, swift, rust, scala/kotlin val, haskell, etc.), let bindings are const and let is synonymous with const.

Let bindings in Lisp are not const. You can use `setf` (among others) to mutate the variable. For instance, this works just fine in Lisp:

  (let ((x 1))
    (print x)  ;; => 1
    (incf x)
    (print x)) ;; => 2
Scheme also allows let bindings to be mutated, but using `set!`.

Re: CheatGPT

#352
post #17
post #8

> Apparently, it's not even something students feel they need to hide. Which is good! If a bit of work is trivially accomplished by a machine, we should take it for granted and move on to the next layer of complexity. I have always maintained that teachers complaining about students cheating at homework assignments with AI need to instead work on providing better homework.

??? By this reasonning nobody should ever learn anything, because it's all 'trivially doable' by machine. Like 'addition' and 'subtraction'. So let's gaslight those dumb teachers by saying they should make up 'better' homework assignments?

I don’t generally like the word “gaslight” as it is normally used by the unsavory but in this case, I think you used it perfectly. That is exactly what people are doing, except for the extremely naive ones. I don’t really know why, though?

Re: CheatGPT

#353
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem so convinced of this and I just don't get it. I'm seeing this comment through my eyeballs, generating some pertinent text in my brain, and outputting it back out. But so many people seem convinced convinced this process is something radically, fundamentally, irreducibly different than what ChatGPT is doing internally, and I don't get why. Is it because I have a consciousness with an internal narrative and…

It's because whatever you and I are doing, it's not simply statistical analysis. That is all that ChatGPT is doing. It may be possible to create a machine that flirts with actual intelligence, but this is simply not it. There's not even room for doubt about this.

> whatever you and I are doing, it's not simply statistical analysis.

How do you know?

Re: CheatGPT

#354

I don't understand how most of the comments here seem to be along the lines of "these interview questions are useless now" or "we need to rethink education, it hasn't kept up". These all seem absurdly myopic to me. What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI. This is not going to make some interview questions obsolete, or give students more tools to cheat with their homework. It…

This take is widely prevalent in every single ChatGPT discussion. I'll quote myself for discussion for a previous article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746348 > I've find two groups of people on this subject, first one has taken a graduate level stat course and/or ML course, and may have work experience in machine learning/data science. The latter camp is more numerous and did not do those things. > The lat…

But from what I’ve seen many skilled AI researchers who have even reimplemented these models themselves do in fact believe that a scaled up ChatGPT could be AGI, or at least that it’s a step towards AGI

Re: CheatGPT

#355
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI absolutely not. language-model text generation is actually about as non-general as it gets -- they are fundamentally incapable of understanding anything at all, ever. they can't do math, work through basic logic problems, or produce any output that isn't just an assumed logical continuation of the input.

People seem so convinced of this and I just don't get it. I'm seeing this comment through my eyeballs, generating some pertinent text in my brain, and outputting it back out. But so many people seem convinced convinced this process is something radically, fundamentally, irreducibly different than what ChatGPT is doing internally, and I don't get why. Is it because I have a consciousness with an internal narrative and…

It's because you and I also have mental resources that are structured very differently from ChatGPT. Even if some part of our brain might resemble a LLM, a LLM is a very poor representation of other parts of the brain. If you take ChatGPT too far, it falls into repetition and demonstrates that it obviously has no comprehension of the material it's remixing.

Maybe some combination of a LLM and other mental machinery would result in AGI with real comprehension.

Re: CheatGPT

#356
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem so convinced of this and I just don't get it. I'm seeing this comment through my eyeballs, generating some pertinent text in my brain, and outputting it back out. But so many people seem convinced convinced this process is something radically, fundamentally, irreducibly different than what ChatGPT is doing internally, and I don't get why. Is it because I have a consciousness with an internal narrative and…

LLM (and deep learning in general) are to AGI what bogosort is to sorting. For some reason beyond me people think it's very important to not try to understand anything about the structure of the problem you're trying to solve and just make a very general algorithm which will be suboptimal in just about every way except for the generality of it's code. Seeing the world as a trillion dimensional token soup is definitel…

Sure, I think buy this interpretation. As long as we can agree that bogosort and quicksort are both still sorting algorithms. My brain definitely has some structures that are useful for me understanding the world that are more immediately useful than trillion dimensional token soup.

But I'm also not convinced that it's impossible those structures could be successfully emulated by quadrillion dimensional token soup. And a lot of folks seem to be convinced that it's some kind of fundamental impossibility.

Re: CheatGPT

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This take is widely prevalent in every single ChatGPT discussion. I'll quote myself for discussion for a previous article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746348 > I've find two groups of people on this subject, first one has taken a graduate level stat course and/or ML course, and may have work experience in machine learning/data science. The latter camp is more numerous and did not do those things. > The lat…

But from what I’ve seen many skilled AI researchers who have even reimplemented these models themselves do in fact believe that a scaled up ChatGPT could be AGI, or at least that it’s a step towards AGI

> many skilled

citation needed, I'm only aware of one case which might be characterized as such (though I digress): https://www.engadget.com/blake-lemoide-fired-google-lamda-se...

Re: CheatGPT

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually used any of these products? GPT et al are perfectly capable of taking knowledge from any one domain and applying it towards the solution of any other problem domain, through various kinds of data abstraction, reasoning by analogy, and other techniques similar to what humans do. It makes plenty of goofups along the way, just like humans do. But if your requirement is that it performs absolutely perfe…

> through various kinds of data abstraction, reasoning by analogy, and other techniques similar to what humans do. No, that's exactly not how LLMs work. They are extremely good at predicting what sentences resemble the sentences in their training data and creating those. That's all. People are getting tripped up because they are seeing legitimate intelligence in the output from these systems -- but that intelligence…

LLM are not fancy Markov chains. These are more than mere statistical prediction. They contain large deeply layered attentional networks which are perfectly capable of representing complex, arbitrarily structured models, trained from the data set or assembled on the fly based on input. I'm sorry, but I think you are about a decade or so out of date in your intuitions for how these things work. (And a decade is a long time in this field.)

Re: CheatGPT

#359
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem so convinced of this and I just don't get it. I'm seeing this comment through my eyeballs, generating some pertinent text in my brain, and outputting it back out. But so many people seem convinced convinced this process is something radically, fundamentally, irreducibly different than what ChatGPT is doing internally, and I don't get why. Is it because I have a consciousness with an internal narrative and…

It's because whatever you and I are doing, it's not simply statistical analysis. That is all that ChatGPT is doing. It may be possible to create a machine that flirts with actual intelligence, but this is simply not it. There's not even room for doubt about this.

[deleted]

Re: CheatGPT

#360
post #163
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intractable and unsolved problems only!

Or just novel applications of the things you learn in class. "Congratulations! You leaned depth-first-search! ^award noises^ Below is the algorithm for reference because memorizing it just for this test is silly. You're working on a real time mapping application called Maply. Locations are represented as nodes and all direct routes between any two nodes are represented by directed weighted edges." a) Write a function…

Novel applications? You mean incremental combinations. You realize finding and solving nontrivial problems is much more complicated task, right? This seems to imply that someone that cannot do simple things can do complicated things, where is the evidence of that?

Why do the most complicated mathematics start with basic principles and work up to complex problems? Why don’t they just start with the Collatz Conjecture?

Post reply on HN