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

There is no A.I.

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 523 posts

Re: There is no A.I.

#381

Post by ImHereToVote »

roflyear wrote: post #360
tracerbulletx wrote: post #27

All of these arguments seem to think that the brain isn't also generating a statistical ordering of semantic words and actions. Obviously the brain has a way more complex network of subsystems with various specialties than the artificial models we have today and is able to generalize language, math, and positional reasoning and mix it with the older parts of the brain for reward and training mechanisms and it can do…

Training the brain seems a lot easier than training an AI wrt the number of iterations. You don't need to process billions or trillions of tokens to understand English.

But you need to process trillions and billions of firing of synapses. It usually takes years for a human brain to be able to use language effectively.

Re: There is no A.I.

#382

Post by ravenstine »

throwaway8503 wrote: post #133
ravenstine wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno if there's some trickery going on under the hood, but GPT-4 does basic arithmetic correctly.

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.

Interesting. I didn't use as large of numbers as you did, but in the low thousands, and ChatGPT w/ GPT-4 got them correct 3 times in a row.

What's also interesting, though not necessarily surprising, is how relatively close the incorrect answers are in your examples. It's not like the model will randomly spit out an answer like 42 if you ask it to multiply something like 36,330 by 26,951.

Re: There is no A.I.

#383

Post by nologic01 »

lib-dev wrote: post #294
bsenftner wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is an issue of scale: humans need to operate at a smaller scale for fairness to exist at all. We do not have any evolutionary preparation for operating collectively at global scale. Our small minds try to take advantage of our situation when in positions of power, while being incapable of realizing the mass unfairness that behavior actualizes. This is an issue with human nature itself. We have to chang…

All nature is in constant flux including human nature. I wouldn’t say “we all know”.

I believe both these comments hold part of the truth. Famously we can only relate to 100 or so real people, but over millenia we developed culture that helps us identify and relate, e.g, to our village, city, company, country etc. All of them virtual entities that help us organize at scale.

That process has not stopped. One fascinating development that should be celebrated much more but alas is still subject to nationalistic attacks is the European Union and the concept of "fellow Europeans". Its the first manifestation of super-national identity, built on the ruins of WWII.

Another equally fascinating thing are open source communities that span the globe. Large scale collaboration is possible and by all accounts will be necessary for our survival.

Unfortunately that cultural process might not be evolving fast enough. From the pandemic experience to the current geopolitical situation its pretty clear adversarial modes are still on the driving seat.

Re: There is no A.I.

#384

Post by uoaei »

naasking wrote: post #332
mrjin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the reason is rather simply: you cannot solve a problem you don't understand. And we don't understand how we understand, period.

> you cannot solve a problem you don't understand. Well that's not true. We tamed fire before understanding combustion, friction, heat, or anything else.

All that's needed to "tame fire" is to have a predictive-enough model of fire dynamics and a suitable method for constraining its state space. There's nothing that requires "understanding" in the scientific sense, only in the pragmatic sense.

Re: There is no A.I.

#385

Post by Etrnl_President »

titzer wrote: post #318

> If the new tech isn’t true artificial intelligence, then what is it? In my view, the most accurate way to understand what we are building today is as an innovative form of social collaboration. What an utterly vapid and ignorant view. In the rest of the article Lanier goes on to argue that it's all just "simple mathematics". Yeah, yeah, and computers are just simple NAND gates, amirite? I've waffled over the years…

[dead]

Re: There is no A.I.

#386

Post by uoaei »

naasking wrote: post #358
quonn wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's irrelevant. Transformers are Turing complete. Whatever mathematical system underlies human cognition will thus have some expression as a transformer. That‘s irrelevant, too, because nothing indicates that the actual transformer of, say, GPT or the training is in any way connected to such an expression of the human brain. Linux is written in C and that‘s Turing complete. And? Therefore Linux is like the brain…

> That‘s irrelevant, too, because nothing indicates that the actual transformer of, say, GPT or the training is in any way connected to such an expression of the human brain. It's not irrelevant, it was merely the premise for the following point, which was that transformers are trained to learn a function. Since they're Turing complete, they can thus hypothetically implement any function, including the function gover…

What is your basis for asserting that transformers (not even sure what's meant: one layer?) are Turing-complete?

Re: There is no A.I.

#387

Post by ResearchCode »

famouswaffles wrote: post #333
krainboltgreene wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It statistically outputs the next probable value of text. There is a lot of math related text in the CommonCrawl (likely the biggest source of it's training). That is all the company who owns it claims that it does. There is no calculation, therefor no basic arithmetic being done correctly.

It's extremely easy to test arithmetic on random numbers it'll never have seen in the training set. GPT-4 can do arithmetic just fine.

And it will give you some random number with maybe the right order of magnitude. Doesn't seem to do arithmetic very fine at all actually.

Re: There is no A.I.

#388

Post by alienicecream »

titzer wrote: post #318

> If the new tech isn’t true artificial intelligence, then what is it? In my view, the most accurate way to understand what we are building today is as an innovative form of social collaboration. What an utterly vapid and ignorant view. In the rest of the article Lanier goes on to argue that it's all just "simple mathematics". Yeah, yeah, and computers are just simple NAND gates, amirite? I've waffled over the years…

My coffee maker has made me coffee thousands of times, it must understand coffee!

Re: There is no A.I.

#389

Post by naasking »

uoaei wrote: post #386
naasking wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That‘s irrelevant, too, because nothing indicates that the actual transformer of, say, GPT or the training is in any way connected to such an expression of the human brain. It's not irrelevant, it was merely the premise for the following point, which was that transformers are trained to learn a function. Since they're Turing complete, they can thus hypothetically implement any function, including the function gover…

What is your basis for asserting that transformers (not even sure what's meant: one layer?) are Turing-complete?

It's a well known property:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.03429

Re: There is no A.I.

#390

Post by comfypotato »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #364
GistNoesis wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don’t have any internal state This is a common misconception : they do have internal state. Transformers are RNNs : section 3.4 (page 5) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.16236.pdf

Correct me if I’m wrong but this concept of state is across a prediction which is a series of token proposals. Not a sense of persistent state over, say, a chat session.

Correct, the state is during propagation. You could really even propose that a basic feedforward network has state during propagation.

I think the proposition is that it’s conscious/sentient during propagation.

I’ve got a graduate level background in cellular neurophysiology, and I’ll admit that I consider this a lot.

In the end, I don’t think it will ever matter because a computer’s consciousness/sentience necessarily depends on humans not wiping memory.

Post reply on HN