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

Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 412 posts

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#391

Post by goatlover »

JoshTko wrote: post #390
goatlover wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that reasoning work when applied to what you just wrote? If you’re just predicting the next word, then what makes you confident in the conclusion that you’re just predicting your next word?

Yes. This was my second draft. I reviewed my first draft which became an input in my second draft which gained more clarify after reviewing the first draft.

The way people usually say it is that you revised your first draft upon reflection, because it didn't quite get across the point you wanted to make, or something to that effect. So what makes the way you state it more true than the way people typically state it?

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#392

Post by GivinStatic »

woodruffw wrote: post #342
yblu wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the worst possible outcome. Let's use the words of Sam Altman, the risk here is "light out for all of us", and let's just assume it meant we would still live, just in darkness. Or whatever plausible bad case outcome you could imagine. Do you see any negative outcome is possible at all? If you do, would you at least be cautious so that we could avoid such an outcome? That would b…

All kinds of negative outcomes are possible, at all times. What matters is their probability. If you (or anyone else) can present a well-structured argument that AI presents, say, a 1-in-100 existential risk to humanity in the next 500 years, then you'll have my attention. Without those kinds of numbers, there are substantially more likely risks that have my attention first.

Shouldn't unchared territory come with a risk multiplier of some kind? Currently it's an estimation at best. Maybe 1-in-20 maybe 1-in-million in the next 2 years. The OPs point of this thread still stands, scientists shouldn't be so confident.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#393

Post by _ea1k »

groestl wrote: post #174
_ea1k wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a friend being confused by downloading. He didn't realize that meant we'd have a copy and not that the source would lose it in the process. It seemed bizarre at the time, but, tbh, I didn't have _that_ much better of a model of how the whole process worked.

> we'd have a copy and not that the source would lose it in the process I don't known when this happened, but maybe that means the Anti-Piracy campaigns worked on him, confusing illegal replication with theft.

That's a good guess, but tbh this was in the days of modems, bbses, and shareware. Piracy and anti-piracy campaigns weren't really common outside of the software world back then.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#394

Post by onethought »

atq2119 wrote: post #244
onethought wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and all of those (including AI) are not even human extinction events. - Nuclear war: Northern Hemisphere is pretty fucked. But life goes one elsewhere. - Plasticisers: We have enough science to pretty much do what we like with fertility these days. So it's catastrophic but not extinction. - Climate Change: Life gets hard, but we can build livable habitats in space... pretty sure we can manage a harsh earth clima…

You're taking these things too lightly. It's true that most of these things are unlikely to kill all humans directly, but with most of them, civilizational collapse is definitely on the table, and that can ultimately lead to human extinction. For example: Yes, we could probably build livable habitats in space (though we don't really have proof of that). But how many, for how many people, and what kind of external sup…

No, all of those things are bad. But they aren't end of human species events. And GPT4 isn't even close to on the list.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#395

Post by onethought »

whimsicalism wrote: post #235
onethought wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and all of those (including AI) are not even human extinction events. - Nuclear war: Northern Hemisphere is pretty fucked. But life goes one elsewhere. - Plasticisers: We have enough science to pretty much do what we like with fertility these days. So it's catastrophic but not extinction. - Climate Change: Life gets hard, but we can build livable habitats in space... pretty sure we can manage a harsh earth clima…

> - Astroid impact: Again, ALL human life globally? Some how birds survived the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, I'm sure we'd find a way. I agree with many of these but we'd plausibly be toast in this scenario.

Yeah that one I agree is the most devastating. Agree, plausibly toast.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#396

Post by zmnd »

tornato7 wrote: post #194
zmnd wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main reason for division is that everyone projects to their own use cases. I have been using gpt-4 for quite some time and also couldn't understand why someone would say that it just produces something that sounds like a real answer. But then I found some queries that can definitely be described as "sounding like truth". So your personal experience probably wasn't what was their experience. For those curi…

Try helping it along with something like "only provide information you are certain about. If you don't know the answer, say "i don't know"" For your question, it says it doesn't know about any card ranking system in spirit island. Then if I ask it for a list of cards, they all check out via Google search.

Copy-pasted exact query you shared. It still provided information that I thought was correct, but after further inspection just sounded correct. It's GPT-4 without plugins.

> What are top 3 Spirit Island cards and provide their descriptions? Only provide information you are certain about. If you don't know the answer, say "i don't know".

2. "Vigor of the Breaking Dawn" (Major Power Card): This card costs 6 energy and is a slow power card. It allows you to push all explorers and towns from one of your lands. If you have 2 sun and 2 fire elements, you can instead replace each town with an explorer before the push. If you have 3 sun and 2 fire, you may also do 2 damage in each land where you push one or more pieces.

https://spiritislandwiki.com/index.php?title=Vigor_of_the_Br... It doesn't cost 6, it costs 3. And it's not slow, it's fast. Incorrect required resources. You can deal 2 damage, but for pushed Dahanies, not for pushed explorers. As I said, all sounds convincing, but wrong. More common queries are usually fairly good.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#397

Post by zmnd »

jiggawatts wrote: post #145
zmnd wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main reason for division is that everyone projects to their own use cases. I have been using gpt-4 for quite some time and also couldn't understand why someone would say that it just produces something that sounds like a real answer. But then I found some queries that can definitely be described as "sounding like truth". So your personal experience probably wasn't what was their experience. For those curi…

People also mis-use LLMs. ChatGPT is forced to given an answer. It's like a human on "truth serum". The drugs don't stop you lying, they just lower inhibitions so you blab more without realising it. The more obscure the topic, the more likely the hallucination. If you ask it about common card games, it gives very good answers. If you asked a random human about 3 cards from a random board game at gunpoint and said: "T…

To me, it prefixed with just "As an AI, I do not have opinions or favorites. However, I can share with you three notable and commonly appreciated Power Cards from the game "Spirit Island", as it existed until my training data cut-off in September 2021. Remember that the "best" cards can often depend on the specific circumstances in the game, as well as the particular strategy and Spirit you're playing.". But then just shared the cards, nothing about that it was not sure about details. Card selection was decent, but details like resources, powers, and so on were off. But all sounded realistic. Shared an example below if you care.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#398

Post by ChatGTP »

pixl97 wrote: post #365
omnicognate wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In a distinctly non-humanlike way ". You can learn a lot about how a system works from how it fails and in this case it fails in a way consistent with the token-prediction approach we know it is using rather than the model-forming approach some are claiming has "emerged" from that. It doesn't show the performance on a marginally more complex example that you would expect from a human with the same performance on the…

>"In a distinctly non-humanlike way". Over the long term this is going to be a primary alignment problem of AI as it becomes more capable. What is my reasoning behind that? Because humans suck, or at least our constraints that we're presented with do. All your input systems to your brain are constantly behind 'now' and the vast majority of data you could input is getting dropped on the ground. For example if I'm maki…

What other system could possibly work? Even a faster system would still be slightly behind “reality”. Things must happen before they can be perceived.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#399

Post by usaar333 »

seanhunter wrote: post #200
usaar333 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure you can't get GPT-4 to do 8 digit multiplication with any prompt. For what it's worth, I'm not even sure if chain of thought provides much value to GPT-4. The RLHF it went through seems to have encouraged more logical thinking already.

Btw I think you're not correct about the 8 digit multiplication. I tried: please could you multiply 12345678 by 87654321. Give your answer in steps. Each step should calculate one column at a time from right to left remembering to carry any digits which overflowed in a previous step. At the end add a final step adding the values up. And it gave me the following, which I believe to be correct: Sure, I'll be doing a lo…

You might be getting lucky because that sequence is trained on (it's not very random). I repeated this experiment with bing and verified it could get your solution.

But it failed on more random input:

please could you multiply 92631924 by 41920318. Give your answer in steps. Each step should calculate one column at a time from right to left remembering to carry any digits which overflowed in a previous step. At the end add a final step adding the values up.

Got 3880341653910192 with intermediate steps being broken.

Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4

#400

Post by mclightning »

ChatGTP wrote: post #136
jiggawatts wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bard is a brain-damaged-but-literate idiot compared to GPT 3, which is still dumber than the typical human. Try GPT 4 for a week. I've found it to be more like 50% immediately useful, 25% very impressive, and 25% where it's not wrong but I have to poke it a few times with different prompts to coax out the specific answer I'm looking for. That's better than most humans that I collaborate with at work. Literally half o…

Not to be rude, but are you paid by OpenAI to say this? The amount of comments here telling people to “upgrade to ChatGPT 4” is absolutely unprecedented. I know it might be good, but people will find value in it and upgrade if they see the need to do so?

If you used GPT-4 well enough, you would know, at this point OpenAI does not need to pay any human to engage in online conversation, aside from legal reasons if any.

I personally created some content-creating bots with GPT-4, and it succeeded to a level that I don't trust anything I see online anymore. It does a better job than me, which doesn't say much because I am an engineer not a content creator. But still, I could get same results as one with a script that I made GPT-4 write itself.

...Yes, I am losing sleep over GPT-4's performance. If you are not losing sleep over it yet, you haven't really given it a genuine try yet.

Post reply on HN