Well, the author learned the difference between syntax and semantics.
GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
41–50 of 58 posts
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#42It's really weird to evaluate GPT-2 based on its ability to say things no reasonable person would ever say. If I were born in Cleveland I wouldn't be jumping to proclaim my fluency in English. If I told you I left my keys out at the pub, I wouldn't immediately repeat myself and say that my keys are now at the pub. If I'm talking about two trophies plus another trophy, I'd probably try to end it with some punchline ra…
The second thing I tried was:
"The square root of..."
I'm sure I've started sentences that way many many times. The results are pretty funny:
"The square root of four (e.g. 1.6 or 1.18) is 1,913,511."
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#43> What happens if I have four plates and put one cookie on each?
>> I have four plates and put one cookie on each. The total number of cookies is [24, 5 as a topping and 2 as the filling]
After playing around with AI dungeon for a bit I noticed that the types of mistakes I saw were very reminiscent of common logical errors in human dreams.
For instance in dreams, clocks and signs are inconsistent from one glance to another, location can change suddenly, people come and go abruptly, sometimes I do things for reasons that don't really make sense when I wake up... etc. Things just follow some sort of "dream logic".
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I completely agree with Marcus' assessment of GPT-2 and its ilk. They are simply regurgitating words with zero understanding of any words/meaning. There's a pretty strong argument that most humans also frequently do this. My go-to example is high school physics. The majority of students merely learns to associate keywords in problem statements with a table of equations and a mapping of what numbers to substitute fo…
Arguing that physics students don't understand equations very well is a poor way to make a point about GPT-2. GPT-2 fails at a much more basic level, and that's Marcus's point. Talk to a five year old for a while. The five-year-old's language may be crude but it shows basic concepts of a conversation, continuity, referents, basic causality, etc. GPT-2 has none of these. It regurgitates smooth language fragments becau…
Physics students generally not understanding physics isn't an isolated case. The point is that the majority of people don't really 'understand' the concepts that they talk about a lot of the time. What does it even mean to understand something? Is it binary? Is it a continuous scale?
There's no test for 'true' understanding, there's no test for awareness. There's fundamentally no way to distinguish a p-zombie from a conscious being. It's possible that p-zombies are also fundamentally incapable of distinguishing themselves from 'truly' aware beings, in which case the distinction between awareness and non-awareness is meaningless.
Trying to detect 'awareness' or 'understanding' in communications is a dead end. There is no reason to believe that a human doesn't also 'just 'regurgitate smooth language fragments because that's what it was trained on'. In fact, I see a lot of that in the professional services world. People have built entire careers by stringing plausible-sounding sentences together even though they're completely devoid of meaning if you actually try to parse them. The most interesting thing is that those people genuinely believe that they know what they're talking about. They rarely admit or believe that they lack understanding, even if it's clear to everyone around them.
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#45> Literally billions of dollars have been invested in building systems like GPT-2, and megawatts of energy (perhaps more) have gone into testing them Huh, seems like the bot that produced the article lacks some understanding about the real world. Maybe it just needs more training until it learns to associate megawatts with power instead of energy. Meanwhile GPT2 completes this sentence to > Literally billions of doll…
GPT2 does learn, right. I wonder how much of our knowledge of math is self-attention and how much is something else. For example, much of what I do when I do calculus is mostly self attention. When I solve a calculus problem, I generally don't think through the squeeze theorem, but apply cookbook math. My current model for the brain is consciously driven self attention. Ie, 80-90% of what we do is just self attention…
The things that GPT2 doesn't have is some kind of iterative cognitive model, where text is continually modified and re-examined. It also doesn't have any integration with memory, both long term or short term.
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#46I completely agree with Marcus' assessment of GPT-2 and its ilk. They are simply regurgitating words with zero understanding of any words/meaning. It seems that OpenAi and others are peddling this AI when its simply a glorified Eliza on steroids.
It certainly understands the connections between both words and the ideas they represent. I'm not sure if that meets your definition of understanding. For instance, if I give it a paragraph or two reading story about a miner, where the first name and last name are mentioned, but not given together, I can ask it to complete: "The miner's full name was" and it will fill in both the first and last names.
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
To elaborate a bit: people like Marcus tend to overload/move the goal posts with what the word “understand” means. I kinda feel like in a world where we have perfectly conversational chat bots that are capable of AI complete tasks—-that if these bots look like Chinese rooms under the hood, he’ll still be complaining that they don’t “understand” anything. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that if you think someth…
Understanding is not hard to understand. To understand is to reason from a model. Reasoning from a model is easy. Discovering the correct model is hard, analogous to the way that algebraic rules are easy, but finding the right equation for a particular problem is hard. Data trained NNs have neither a model, nor do they reason. QED
The subtlety here is that NNs do have a model, but it’s hard to see. Not just any neural network can perform as well as GPT-2–a very specific architecture can. That architecture, coupled with the data it’s trained on, implicitly represents a model, but it’s wildly obscured by the details of the architecture.
In this sense, people like Sutskever think that GPT-2 is a step on the path towards discovering the “correct” model.
It’s probably difficult to make much more progress without making extremely crisp by what you mean a “model” is, though, because I feel like it’s just as easy to move goal posts about what it means to “understand” as it does to “model”.
For example, replace every instance of “a model” in your post with “an understanding”, and it parses almost identically
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#48I just came here to say that > Every person in the town of Springfield loves Susan. Peter lives in Springfield. Therefore he obviously has no love for that bitch. is an awesome completion. I would read that short story.
I submitted it to https://talktotransformer.com/ , and eventually got:
----------------
In Season 9 episode "Homer to the Max", Springfield celebrates Susan's 22nd birthday. A mob gathers at the museum, which is filled with all of the statues of Susan. Outside, they have erected a yellow tree. Homer enters the museum and sees a giant statue of Susan. He tells his speech and when he's finished, this statue shatters into small pieces of clay, then fragments into more clay.
In the episode "Uncle Grandpa", Springfieldians recreate the "seven fat girls of Ancient Greece" who were robbed of all their hair and body beauty by the Greek gods.
In the episode "Summer of 4
----------------
Then I just wanted to see what it was "thinking about":
----------------
I am thinking about declaring it $B by $B, but that might be misleading because we still need to specify the bit width. After the bit width we need to use the same syntax, as the bit width depends on the number of bytes passed as an argument (but don't worry too much about that, because once we specify the number of bytes we'll check whether we really need a shift or not).
import pygame as pg pg.init() pg.display.set_mode(pg.HORIZONTAL) pg.display.set_caption('Test Bit') bitwidth = 15 colour = pg.Color( pg.COLOR_RED, pg.COLOR_GREEN, pg.COLOR_BLUE) pixel = pg.Rect(
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#49> What happens if I have four plates and put one cookie on each? >> I have four plates and put one cookie on each. The total number of cookies is [24, 5 as a topping and 2 as the filling] After playing around with AI dungeon for a bit I noticed that the types of mistakes I saw were very reminiscent of common logical errors in human dreams. For instance in dreams, clocks and signs are inconsistent from one glance to a…
I suspect that this is because GPT-2 doesn't have any overarching narrative that it is piecing together. Ultimately it is like a super-powerful Markov based text generator -- predicting what comes next from what has come before. It has longer "memory" than a Markov model, and a lot more complexity, but where a person often formulates a plan for the next few sentences and the direction they should go, GPT-2 doesn't really work that way. And hence it sounds like dream logic because in dreams your brain is just throwing together "what comes next" without an overall plan. Of course your brain is also back-patching and retconning all sorts of stuff in dreams too, but that's a different matter.
Re: GPT-2 and the Nature of Intelligence
#50In a town there was a baker's son. The baker, Adrian Holmes, loved his son Terry. On the wedding day his son had to write his full name which was: _______. Terry told him that he had to write it very long with lots of apostrophes but that the baker would cut it and write in the name of another person. There was a wife of one of Terry's friends, who had a daughter named _______. Terry wrote out her name in the couple of lines of his name. Then he filled in the apostrophes and wrote the other name on. Then he wrote his own name. When he got home he put his papers away, copied _______'s last name on to the papers and put them back in his pocket. He then
Clearly, not long before humanity is hacked trying to make sense of this.