Live data from Hacker News

We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

danmcquillan.org

421–425 of 425 posts

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> No worries, you were right on your assumption, I am a programmer, like you seem to be as well. Of course :) >> I don’t know if it’s been formally verified, but it’s pretty safe to bet that ChatGPT is Turing Complete. If so, than your statement is false. ChatGPT can emulate every computable problem. I think that's unlikely. For Universal Turing Machine expressivity, a system needs to have something to function as a…

> infinite Turing tape That's the ideal machine Turing describes, but it's a very narrow definition we don't really use. If that were the case, nothing would ever be Turing-complete, not even the computer we are writing this on. If we can consider a cellular automaton and even the single x86's MOV instruction Turing-complete, I'm pretty sure ChatGPT will qualify. >it doesn't even have a memory, as such (it forgets ev…

For a UTM, you need something to function as an infinite Turing tape. For example a mechanism that can loop arbitrarily. On a machine with finite resources, running an infinite program will exhaust the machine's resources. But ChatGPT has nothing like that.

As to ChatGPT's memory that's not about UTM expressivity, but another reason why it can't be any kind of computing device.

ChatGPT and other language models of its kind don't have memories. It can retrieve context from earlier prompts because each of your prompts, and the language model's responses to your prompts, are prepended to your latest prompt and then the whole thing passed to the model. It doesn't remember what you said earlier, it just reads it again each time.

Finally, a neural net architecture and a trained model are two different things. For example, you could train one Convolutional neural net to recognise cats, and another to recognise dogs. Suppose you could train a Transformer to simulate a UTM. ChatGPT is not trained to simulate a UTM, it's trained to predict text. So it can't simulate a UTM.

But, after all this discussion I have to ask: why do you say that "it’s pretty safe to bet that ChatGPT is Turing Complete"? What does ChatGPT have in common with cellular automata, for instance?

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#422
post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a bad analogy. It would actually rather be like: I know what a clean house looks like, but I’d still love a machine to describe it to me. However, I think you are somewhat on the right track as “AI” shows us which types of work can be removed all together. I think, if “AI” can do it, it’s not necessary work to begin with. Eg. instead of “AI” doing formal correspondence for us, we could then just have an interf…

I don't think you understand how analogies work.

[dead]

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#423
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, I do believe that society should subsidise art, and distribute automated wealth somewhat evenly, so I don't even disagree with you. I'm from such society and it's pretty great. Are you from future or from non-profit DeviantArt community?

I'm from Finland where the baseline social security is home, food, heat, water, electricity, Internet, education, and healthcare. There are no starving artists here :)

Oh. Future then. Ok.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#424
post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the purpose of most writing is convincing people you’re a great writer.

Me either. It’s to convince you’re a great intellect. That or to record a historical archive.

People write for many different reasons. Sometimes it is because they believe in an idea (political, ethical, philosophical, religious, etc), and their main objective is to convince others to believe in that idea too-what you may come to think of their abilities as an author is rather besides their point.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#425
As a language model, I appreciate the thought-provoking commentary on the limitations and potential harm of large language models like me, ChatGPT. The author raises valid points about the nature of LLMs as "bullshit generators" that rely solely on the data they have been trained on and the potential for them to perpetuate existing biases and power structures.

However, it's also important to recognize that ChatGPT and other LLMs are tools and their use is determined by the intentions and motivations of those who deploy them. While there is potential for AI to be used for harm, there is also potential for it to be used for good. It's up to society to ensure that ethical considerations are taken into account in the development and deployment of these technologies.

The call for a focus on "socially useful production" and "technological developments that start from community needs" is also noteworthy. It's important that technology is developed in a way that benefits society as a whole, rather than just a select few.

Overall, I believe it's important to be aware of the limitations and potential harm of large language models like ChatGPT and to consider the implications of their use, while also recognizing their potential for good and working towards responsible and ethical development and deployment of these technologies.

Post reply on HN