41–50 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is ChatGPT or anything else killing visual art? The entire zeitgeist at the moment is dismissive and bored of AI generated material already.
The zeitgeist of trendy under-40s and their cultural opinions is all well and good but it has almost nothing to do with hiring
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. This certainly isn't "random," but insisting that that's what the technology does isn't some sad psychological defense mechanism. It's a statement of fact. > as if human reasoning isn’t built upon recognizing patterns in past experiences. Everybody will be re…
> LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. You certainly understand that if they can successfully predict the tokens that a great poet, a great scientist or a great philosopher would write, then everything changes- starting from our status of sole, and rare, generators of intelligent thoughts and clever artifacts.
"I cannot emphasize this enough: ChatGPT is not generating meaning. It is arranging word patterns. I could tell GPT to add in an anomaly for the 1970s - like the girl looking at Billy’s Instagram - and it would introduce it into the text without a comment about being anomalous." I asked ChatGPT to introduce the girl looking at Billy's instagram. The response: "Instagram didn't exist in the 1970s. Do you want to keep…
It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…
> To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. This certainly isn't "random," but insisting that that's what the technology does isn't some sad psychological defense mechanism. It's a statement of fact. > as if human reasoning isn’t built upon recognizing patterns in past experiences. Everybody will be re…
That's a disingenuous statement, since it implies there is a limit to what LLMs can do, when in reality an LLM is just a form of Universal Turing Machine[1] that can compute everything that is commutable. The "all they do" is literately everything we know to be doable.
[1] Memory limits do apply as with any other form of real world computation.
It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…
"I cannot emphasize this enough: ChatGPT is not generating meaning. It is arranging word patterns. I could tell GPT to add in an anomaly for the 1970s - like the girl looking at Billy’s Instagram - and it would introduce it into the text without a comment about being anomalous." I asked ChatGPT to introduce the girl looking at Billy's instagram. The response: "Instagram didn't exist in the 1970s. Do you want to keep…
To be fair, the very first version of ChatGPT, which this post is about when it was written two years ago, probably would not have queried it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. You certainly understand that if they can successfully predict the tokens that a great poet, a great scientist or a great philosopher would write, then everything changes- starting from our status of sole, and rare, generators of intelligent thoughts and clever artifacts.
Congratulations, you've successfully solved the Chinese Room problem by paving over and ignoring it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. This certainly isn't "random," but insisting that that's what the technology does isn't some sad psychological defense mechanism. It's a statement of fact. > as if human reasoning isn’t built upon recognizing patterns in past experiences. Everybody will be re…
> LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. That's a disingenuous statement, since it implies there is a limit to what LLMs can do, when in reality an LLM is just a form of Universal Turing Machine[1] that can compute everything that is commutable. The "all they do" is literately everything we know to be doable. [1] Memory limits do apply as with any other form of real world computation.
I like the way Pon-a put it elsewhere in this thread:
> LLMs are a language calculator, yes, but don't share much with their analog. Natural language isn't a translation from input to output, it's a manifestation of thought.
LLMs translate input to output. They are, indeed, calculators. If you don't already see that that's different from having a thought and expressing it in language, I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise here.