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

461–470 of 523 posts

Re: There is no A.I.

#461

Post by turtleyacht »

comfypotato wrote: post #390
fauxpause_ wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 necessari…

> conscious/sentient during propagation

Interesting. We've instituted a micro unit of sentience within an observable time slice:

  Not for nothing have--
  We put in a mind within
  In conscious seconds

Re: There is no A.I.

#462

Post by GistNoesis »

fragsworth wrote: post #453
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you misunderstood the comment you're replying to. It says the internal state could be recreated because it is deterministic, and this is correct. Assuming you have control of the parameters (seed etc.) you can reproduce the exact internal states by submitting the same tokens with the same parameters over again step-by-step. With GPT-4 you can do this in the OpenAI Dialogue Playground or via the API.

> I believe you misunderstood the comment you're replying to. No, did you even read my quote? How did I misunderstand this: > At the end of the chat session, this internal state is not persisted It's misinformed at best, misleading at worst. The non-misleading truth is at the end of each message , the internal state is not persisted. I didn't disagree about how you can reproduce things. You have to do that to continu…

I agree that for chatbots that offer APIs, they are most likely currently implemented as stateless.

Meaning they take as input the last "context window" characters from the client, and use it to recompute the internal state, and then start generating character by character. But after the generation no memory need to be kept used on the server (except a very small "context window tokens").

Chatbots like llama.cpp in interactive mode don't have to recompute this internal state at every interaction.

You can view the last "context window" characters as a compressed representation of the internal state.

This becomes more pertinent as the "context window" gets bigger, as the bigger the "context window" the more you will have to recompute at each interaction.

The transformer architecture can also be trained differently so as to generate "context vectors" of finite size that synthesize all the past previous message of the conversation (encoder-decoder architecture). This "context vector" can be kept on the server more easily, and will contain the gist and the important things of the conversation, but won't be able to quote things exactly from the past directly. This context vector is then used to condition the generation of the reply. And once the chatbot has replied and received a new prompt, you update the finite size context vector (with a distinct neural network) to get a context vector with the latest information incorporated that you use to condition the generation, ad infinitum.

Re: There is no A.I.

#463

Post by comfypotato »

turtleyacht wrote: post #461
comfypotato wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 necessari…

> conscious/sentient during propagation Interesting. We've instituted a micro unit of sentience within an observable time slice: Not for nothing have-- We put in a mind within In conscious seconds

It’s begging for new sub-genres of the philosophy of the mind.

Re: There is no A.I.

#464

Post by afro88 »

lm28469 wrote: post #412
afro88 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But out of all the programmers I know, there are only certain ones that are embracing it, and the rest are still stuck in "I tried it and the code wasn't exactly what I wanted - it's all hype" land. And I think for one of the reasons you say: programmers are vain and believe everything they do requires great intelligence. A lot are still missing the forest from the trees.

I tried so much to use it for my day job but it's next to useless, it takes more time to get it to go where I want than to actually do it myself. My day job is far from requiring a great intelligence, but the tasks are too specific for chatgpt I've used it for side projects though, especially front end stuff that I absolutely hate (js) and it works fine for that, but that's because I'm absolutely garbage at it in the…

What's your day job, out of interest?

Re: There is no A.I.

#465

Post by krainboltgreene »

famouswaffles wrote: post #400
ResearchCode wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah that's not true lol. It's arithmetic is not perfect (mostly multiplication, addition is fine) but there's nothing random about even the wrong/non-exact numbers

we're talking about an llm dude

how am i supposed to have a conversation about someone who is gassing up "not perfect [arithmetic]" (something a wrist watch from the 80's can do) and won't even believe what the creators of said machine say about how it works

Re: There is no A.I.

#466

Post by JieJie »

wankle wrote: post #418
kazinator wrote: post #38

GPT4 appears very intelligent when you discuss program code with it. It simply crazy; it can write SNOBOL4 code to extract a field from /etc/passwd. When you discuss other things, it goes off the rails a lot more. For instance, I have had it quote some passages of classic English poetry to me, stating blankly that those passages contain certain words. The passages did not contain any traces of those words or even rem…

> To be sure, what the technology does is unmistakably a form intelligence. > Computers playing chess is AI. Computers doing anything are following the programming of their programmers. Without feeling and free will, there is no AI.

> Without feeling and free will, there is no AI.

That's quite a leap to that conclusion, friend.

Re: There is no A.I.

#467

Post by b33j0r »

rubslopes wrote: post #164
rootusrootus wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition, we shouldn't draw false equivalence between not knowing how brains work and not knowing how LLMs work, and concluding they must be similar.

Also, it's always funny to notice how the brain, throughout history, has always been compared to the latest technology available. For a long time people said "the brain must be similar to a clock".

Wouldn’t you say that this is how evolution and the spread of information works, in a system that has the spark of some life chemistry?

Of course… The hole in that theory is that evolution never found the wheel.

The steel man in that theory is that it invented the neurological and social processes that then went on to invent the wheel. And the platypus and the clap.

Edit: I forgot to bring it back around and make a point ;)

I’m saying that humans invented clocks and CPUs. We only have metaphors that have emerged from the still misunderstood ether of the informatic universe.

Re: There is no A.I.

#468

Post by IshKebab »

goatlover wrote: post #317
IshKebab wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of argument is making a similar mistake. In the same way that there's nothing fundamentally special about the computation human brains do, there's nothing fundamentally special about our "fitness function" (to reproduce). It's just hard coded, whereas GPT's is dictated. More or less anyway. Also our "fitness function" or motivations & goals aren't even that hard coded. You can easily modify them thr…

The argument is that LLMs don't have any motivations or goals, unless a human prompts them. They're not trying to stay alive or reproduce. They don't get hungry, feel pain or loneliness. They're just complex tools.

I know. The implication of that argument is that the motivations or goals of humans are different from those prompts in some way that means that GPT is not "really" intelligent.

That's my point. It's raising some arbitrary human trait to special status, when it really isn't. Human goals are set by some external process too - evolution. And they aren't really even intrinsically fixed. They can be modified through drugs.

I think the strongest demonstration of that is post orgasm clarity (if you're a man anyway). Your whole motivation changes in an instant.

Re: There is no A.I.

#469

Post by fragsworth »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #457
fragsworth wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe you misunderstood the comment you're replying to. No, did you even read my quote? How did I misunderstand this: > At the end of the chat session, this internal state is not persisted It's misinformed at best, misleading at worst. The non-misleading truth is at the end of each message , the internal state is not persisted. I didn't disagree about how you can reproduce things. You have to do that to continu…

>I didn't disagree about how you can reproduce things. You have to do that to continue a conversation. You do not have to reproduce the internal states to continue a conversation. When prior parts of the conversation are loaded into context the hidden states which generated those prior tokens are not reproduced. They are only reproduced if resubmitted in a piecemeal fashion, which does not happen in normal conversati…

Ok, I agree! That one sentence of mine was wrong. You don't have to reproduce state to continue a conversation. I was just trying to throw a bone, but even that bone was bad.

But then... doesn't that just point out that I was right on everything else? That there is absolutely no state between chat messages?

Re: There is no A.I.

#470

Post by dns_snek »

kazinator wrote: post #38

GPT4 appears very intelligent when you discuss program code with it. It simply crazy; it can write SNOBOL4 code to extract a field from /etc/passwd. When you discuss other things, it goes off the rails a lot more. For instance, I have had it quote some passages of classic English poetry to me, stating blankly that those passages contain certain words. The passages did not contain any traces of those words or even rem…

> GPT4 is deliberately trained as a coding technician, so that it will convince programmers who will become its advocates.

I'm a programmer and I've used GPT4 for a variety of tasks (well, tried to). The results have been mediocre on average, usually syntactically correct, but more often than not, semantically incorrect. It usually ends in frustration as GPT-4 keeps responding confidently incorrect answers and upon the slightest expression of doubt, it tends to spin in circles.

    ChatGPT: 
    Me: Are you sure? Reasons A, B, C [...]
    ChatGPT: I apologize... 
    Me: Are you sure? Reasons D, E, F [...]
    ChatGPT: I apologize ...
I'd like to know what people who are so impressed with GPT-4's programming capabilities are doing? It must be TODO apps, solving leetcode problems, writing basic Express.js routers, some basic React components and code for . The kind of things ChatGPT has seen a million of examples of.
Post reply on HN