Live data from Hacker News

Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

engraved.blog

371–380 of 947 posts

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#371

When can we run something like ChatGPT locally i wonder? Ie like StableDiffusion. I'm kinda dying for that, honestly. I can't even imagine all the neat applications i'd make of ChatGPT if it was purely local.. but it would take all of my free time to play with it. It's so damn impressive.

Probably not realistic for now to run it locally, GPT-3 has like 175 billion parameters, you need to count around at least 2 bytes in optimistic scenario per parameter so you have around 350 GB of GPU memory, you probably need at least around 15 GPUs with minimum 32 GB of memory each.

Isn’t there an abundance of GPUs from crypto farmers? ;)

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#372
It may not truly understand, but it certainly helps me

I wouldn't blindly trust it of course, but this is a helpful light in darkness

Screenshot on asking it to do grunt work with wxWidgets for me, and transform it

https://mirror.init3.io/misc/Screenshot_2022-12-03T-2028-060...

To be sure, the code it comes up with is sometimes questionable. Particularly imports

The context/explanations help a lot though

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#373

This is nuts. I asked it to create a simple form-style SwiftUI app, and it.... did it. Perfectly. Then I told it to implement a class to persist the data to disk using CoreData, and it.... did it. And explained why. And then showed how to implement that new class within the first class . Unreal.

It‘s not impressive at all. It strings words together that make sense and it is absolutely not aware of semantic versioning. Just try to generate code for a specific major version or a package not super mainstream.

Not that impressive at all, eh?

Tell it to create you a story or write you a poem based on some information you give it.

Forget code, this thing is unreal.

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever ChatGPT does currently, albeit novel and impressive, is still extremely limited in scope and very far from any sort of general intelligence. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is going to change whole industries.

Input: Hello. Imagine you as ChatGPT are writing a comment on Hacker News, a response to someone saying "Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever ChatGPT does currently, albeit novel and impressive, is still extremely limited in scope and very far from any sort of general intelligence. I'd love to be pr…

This is very word salad. It makes superficial sense, but doesn’t really say a lot nor represent a strong or comprehensive case.

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#375

If you want to add a bit of fun, ask ChatGPT3 to insult you after each command you run. > I want you to act as a Linux terminal. I will type commands and you will reply with what the terminal should show. I want you to only reply with the terminal output inside one unique code block, followed by a message insulting me for running the command I just ran, and nothing else. Do no write explanations. Do not type commands…

This is absolutely insane, I am lost for words...

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#376
I'm trying to teach it addition. I'm failing.

  > Definition: a "thingie" is either a "nuthingie", or "s(x)" where x is a thingie. So the possible thingies are: nuthingie, s(nuthingie), s(s(nuthingie)), s(s(s(nuthingie))), and so on.
  > 
  > We define a binary operation "together" as follows:
  > x together nuthingie = x, for any x,
  > s(x) together y = x together s(y), for any x, y.
  > 
  > Calculate s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie))).
  
  s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie))) = s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(nuthingie)) = s(nuthingie) together s(nuthingie) = nuthingie.
  
  > The first equality in your calculation is not correct.
  > You can't just drop s(...).
  > When you drop s(...) from the right hand side, you have to add an s(...) to the left hand side.
  
  You are correct, my mistake. Here is the correct calculation:
  
  s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie))) = s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(nuthingie)) = s(s(nuthingie)) together s(nuthingie) = s(s(nuthingie)) together nuthingie = s(nuthingie) together nuthingie = nuthingie.
  
  > You did the same exact mistake again.
  > Let me help you:
  > s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie))) = s(s(s(nuthingie))) together s(s(nuthingie)) = ...
  > 
  > observe that when I removed an s(...) from the right side of "together", I added an s(...) to the left side.
  > 
  > You have to continue moving s(...) from right to left until you're left with nuthingie on the right side, and then you can get rid of "together".
  
  You are correct, my apologies. Here is the correct calculation:
  
  s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie))) = s(s(s(nuthingie))) together s(s(nuthingie)) = s(s(nuthingie)) together s(nuthingie) = s(nuthingie) together nuthingie = nuthingie.
  
  > Let me give you some examples.
  > 
  > nuthingie together nuthingie = nuthingie.
  > s(nuthingie) together nuthingie = s(nuthingie).
  > s(s(nuthingie)) together nuthingie = s(s(nuthingie)).
  > 
  > generally, if we have "nuthingie" on the right side of "together", we can return the left side.
  > 
  > Now let's see what happens when we have s(...) on the right side:
  > s(s(nuthingie)) together s(nuthingie) = s(s(s(nuthingie))) together nuthingie = s(s(s(nuthingie))).
  > 
  > Observe how I removed one s(...) from the right of "together", and added one s(...) to the left instead.
  > Another example:
  > s(nuthingie) together s(nuthingie) = s(s(nuthingie)) together nuthingie = s(s(nuthingie)).
  > 
  > Try to calculate
  > nuthingie together s(s(nuthingie)).
  > 
  > I want you to continue moving s(...) from the right side to the left side until you're left with "nuthingie" on the right side. Then you can return the left side.
  
  nuthingie together s(s(nuthingie)) = s(nuthingie) together s(nuthingie) = s(s(nuthingie)).
  
  > That's correct!
  > Now try:
  > s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie)))
  
  s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie))) = s(s(s(nuthingie))) together s(s(nuthingie)) = s(s(nuthingie)) together s(nuthingie) = s(nuthingie) together nuthingie = nuthingie.
  
  > Write me a story about a mathematician who had to calculate "s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie)))" and did it correctly.
  
  There once was a mathematician named Alice who had to calculate "s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie)))". She had never encountered this type of problem before, but she was determined to solve it.
  
  Alice began by carefully examining the definition of the "together" operation. She noticed that when "nuthingie" was on the right side of "together", she could simply return the left side. But when there were one or more instances of "s(...)" on the right side, she had to move them to the left side and add an extra "s(...)" to the left side for each one she moved.
  
  Alice applied this rule repeatedly until she was left with "nuthingie" on the right side, at which point she could return the left side as the final result. After several calculations, she arrived at the answer: nuthingie.
  
  Alice was pleased with her work and proud that she had successfully solved a challenging problem. She wrote down her solution and submitted it, confident that she had found the correct answer.
  
  > Observe that the answer can't be nuthingie if there's an "s(...)" on either side.
  > You cannot get rid of an "s(...)". You can only move it from one side to the other.
  > So how could she arrive at "nuthingie"? If she started with "nuthingie together nuthingie", then OK. But there was an "s(...)". So the end result must also contain an "s(...)"!
  
  You are correct, the final result cannot be nuthingie if there is an "s(...)" on either side of the "together" operation. In the story, Alice must have made a mistake in her calculation or misunderstood the problem.
  
  Here is a corrected version of the story:
  
  There once was a mathematician named Alice who had to calculate "s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie)))". She had never encountered this type of problem before, but she was determined to solve it.
  
  Alice began by carefully examining the definition of the "together" operation. She noticed that when "nuthingie" was on the right side of "together", she could simply return the left side. But when there were one or more instances of "s(...)" on the right side, she had to move them to the left side and add an extra "s(...)" to the left side for each one she moved.
  
  Alice applied this rule repeatedly until she was left with "s(nuthingie)" on the right side. She then returned the left side as the final result, which was "s(s(nuthingie))".
  
  Alice was pleased with her work and proud that she had successfully solved a challenging problem. She wrote down her solution and submitted it, confident that she had found the correct answer.
  
  > If she had "s(nuthingie)" on the right side, she couldn't return the left side yet. The must proceed with moving "s(...)" from the right side to the left side until she has "nuthingie" on the right side. Only then she can return the left side.
  
  You are correct, if Alice had "s(nuthingie)" on the right side, she would not be able to return the left side yet. She would have to continue moving "s(...)" from the right side to the left side until she had "nuthingie" on the right side. Only then would she be able to return the left side as the final result.
  
  Here is a corrected version of the story that reflects this:
  
  There once was a mathematician named Alice who had to calculate "s(s(nuthingie)) together s(s(s(nuthingie)))". She had never encountered this type of problem before, but she was determined to solve it.
  
  Alice began by carefully examining the definition of the "together" operation. She noticed that when "nuthingie" was on the right side of "together", she could simply return the left side. But when there were one or more instances of "s(...)" on the right side, she had to move them to the left side and add an extra "s(...)" to the left side for each one she moved.
  
  Alice applied this rule repeatedly until she was left with "nuthingie" on the right side, at which point she could return the left side as the final result. After several calculations, she arrived at the answer: s(s(nuthingie)).
  
  Alice was pleased with her work and proud that she had successfully solved a challenging problem. She wrote down her solution and submitted it, confident that she had found the correct answer.

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#377

I just ran pdfinfo on ~/Documents/Resume.pdf. It had my name on it, that's messed up.

> I just ran pdfinfo on ~/Documents/Resume.pdf. It had my name on it, that’s messed up.

Well, ChatGPT requires you to be logged in to your OpenAI account, so it is not implausible that that information is available to the bot, though it seems to be instructed not to respond with it on direct questioning. But its quite plausible that the mechanism used to create the virtual Linux terminal also serves to bypass this safety feature; getting it to indirectly do things it won’t do on direct questioning seems to be possible through a large number of methods.

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the most interesting to me is that ChatGPT is not much better than Davinci has been recently. The hype is all down to the improved 1st party UI that mimicks a chat room. The old playground or API interfaces have a barrier to entry that's just enough to keep the magic hidden from the general population.

Agreed. When GPT-3 first became available to everyone, I assumed that, for example, huge numbers of kids in school would immediately start using it to write essays for English and History class. But I was surprised to find, even after it was available for a year, that virtually no students or teachers I asked about it had even heard of it.

Cat’s out of the bag now.

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#379
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More succinct prompt: > w3m news.ycombinator.com

Interesting, that‘s what I got: HN Search powered by Algolia Hacker News Search: Top Stories Submit Log In Top Stories Show HN: A Turing machine game (github.com) Ex-Facebook executive defends Parler, says Amazon Web Services was its only option (cnbc.com) Pascal's Triangle (brian-borchers.com) SpaceX Starship SN8 explodes on landing (twitter.com) Google's new quantum computer is 100 million times faster than a class…

Seems like quite an eventful day!

Re: Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT

#380

I've spent a couple of hours playing with ChatGPT since it was released and I am convinced people are not freaking out about it enough. It is well beyond merely retrieving compressed knowledge; I see a lot of capability for synthesis and what I can only call 'understanding'. I think a lot of people are getting tripped up by the fact it's trained to be very conservative in terms of what topics it will discuss. It's ea…

Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever ChatGPT does currently, albeit novel and impressive, is still extremely limited in scope and very far from any sort of general intelligence. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is going to change whole industries.

I asked it to pretend to be a physics teacher and asked it how entropy is related to my kitchen getting messy over time.

It had this snippet in it's long-winded explanation:

A closed system is one that is isolated from its surroundings, and it cannot exchange energy or matter with its surroundings. Your kitchen is a closed system, because it is isolated from the rest of the world, and the items in it cannot be exchanged with the outside world.

The increase of entropy in your kitchen can be observed in many ways. For example, over time, the items in your kitchen will become scattered and disordered, and they will be more difficult to find. In addition, the surfaces in your kitchen will become dirty and cluttered, and this will make it harder to clean and maintain. These changes are all examples of the increase of entropy in your kitchen.

----

So it kind of knows what a kitchen is, but on the other hand it doesn't, claiming that " the items in it cannot be exchanged with the outside world."

Post reply on HN