Is anyone else absolutely terrified of the future this is bringing?
kinda??
GPT-4
681–690 of 1001 posts
Re: GPT-4
#682Anyone got the "image upload" working? I bought the chatgpt-plus, I can try chatgpt4, but I can't seem to find a way to upload images.
I tried sending links, I don't see anything in the UI.
Interestingly, 3.5 can work with links, but 4 cannot.
Re: GPT-4
#683As the world marvels at the astonishing capabilities of OpenAI's GPT-4, I find myself contemplating the rapid acceleration of AI and machine learning, and the evolutionary impact it is having on our lives. Naturally, I turned to GPT-4 to assist me in these thoughts.
GPT-4's human-level performance on professional and academic benchmarks - such as the 88th percentile on the LSAT and the 89th on SAT Math - is a testament to the leaps we've made in artificial intelligence. Yet, these achievements also raise pressing questions about our future. Just as Homo Sapiens once outperformed and eventually displaced their Neanderthal cousins, could a new breed of humans - enhanced with GPT-X-like capabilities - arise to dominate those who remain unequipped with such powers?
What will it mean for our species, our societies, and our collective story when the lines between natural intelligence and intelligence assisted by AI/ML become ever more blurred?
As we ponder the remarkable rise of GPT-4 and the future of humanity, let us consider not only the implications of this technology but also our roles in shaping its trajectory. We are already over the cusp of this new chapter in the story of humankind, will we become merely a footnote in the annals of our own creation?
Re: GPT-4
#684A class of problem that GPT-4 appears to still really struggle with is variants of common puzzles. For example: >Suppose I have a cabbage, a goat and a lion, and I need to get them across a river. I have a boat that can only carry myself and a single other item. I am not allowed to leave the cabbage and lion alone together, and I am not allowed to leave the lion and goat alone together. How can I safely get all three…
Better "think step-by-step" and/or "please outline the problems depending on which object goes first"/etc prompting may help - the model needs to be nudged to think out loud and explore the problem, since the leap from problem statement to solution is too big for it to "predict" without some self-generated intermediate steps.
Re: GPT-4
#685> Yes, you can send me an image as long as it's in a supported format such as JPEG, PNG, or GIF. Please note that as an AI language model, I am not able to visually process images like a human would. However, I can still provide guidance or advice on the content of the image or answer any questions you might have related to it. Fair, but if it can analyze linked image, I would expect it to be able to tell me what tex…
did you paste in a link? you are aware chatgpt can't follow links, right?
Re: GPT-4
#686A class of problem that GPT-4 appears to still really struggle with is variants of common puzzles. For example: >Suppose I have a cabbage, a goat and a lion, and I need to get them across a river. I have a boat that can only carry myself and a single other item. I am not allowed to leave the cabbage and lion alone together, and I am not allowed to leave the lion and goat alone together. How can I safely get all three…
A funny variation on this kind of over-fitting to common trick questions - if you ask it which weighs more, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers, it will correctly explain that they actually weigh the same amount, one pound. But if you ask it which weighs more, two pounds of bricks or a pound of feathers, the question is similar enough to the trick question that it falls into the same thought process and contorts…
I just asked bing chat this question and it linked me to this very thread while also answering incorrectly in the end:
>This is a common riddle that may seem tricky at first. However, the answer is simple: two pounds of feathers are heavier than one pound of bricks. This is because weight is a measure of how much force gravity exerts on an object, and it does not depend on what the object is made of. A pound is a unit of weight, and it is equal to 16 ounces or 453.6 grams.
>So whether you have a pound of bricks or two pounds of feathers, they both still weigh one pound in total. However, the feathers would occupy a larger volume than the bricks because they are less dense. This is why it may seem like the feathers would weigh more, but in reality, they weigh the same as the bricks
Re: GPT-4
#687What I don't understand is how GPT-4 is able to do reasonably well on tests like the AMC12: Many of the AMC12 questions require a number of logical/deductive steps. If GPT-4 is simply trained on a large corpus of text, how is it able to do this? Does this imply that there is some emergent deductive ability that you get simply by learning "language?" Or am I missing something? Obviously, I'm assuming that GPT-4 wasn't…
emergent deductive ability. lol. what do you call its writing, emergent writing ability? this is an algorithm where all the numbers are random, literally everything about it is emergent except the structure of the nodes. people have this stupid idea that GTP cant do this or cant do that. if GTP were just a set of nodes on paper, without any weights, in the year 2010, everyone in the world would say there is no way in hell that a structure of nodes such as that could write lucidly like a human being and perform as well as a human on various tests. they would say "you mean to tell me that if you just applied random numbers to those nodes, it would acquire some kind of emergent writing ability, some kind of emergent reading ability? it could have anything. it could have anything that is in the set of all algorithms that fit in those nodes. that could be AGI, it could be anything. there is zero doubt to anyone with any sense that it is finding in those random numbers some basic primitives or elements of conscious thought. while not demonstrating sentience or human logic, it clearly forms abstractions that are similar to ones used in animal minds and it clearly possess ways of reasoning about or connecting these abstractions. this is literally the first AI that has done this, with several lesser spooky AIs leading up to this since 2011. GTP was the very first AI to demonstrate that spooky reasoning and lucidity and its gotten us all this. how about version 2? 3? how about, now that capital is going to flow into this like a burst dam, version 1000? we are fucked. these AI training algorithms are going to strike gold quickly and before you know it, the models will be running the whole mining operation and then we will be fucking toast. someone on here said hes worried about 20% unemployment rate. people have noooooo idea whats going on.
Re: GPT-4
#688That footnote on page 15 is the scariest thing i've read about AI/ML to date.
"To simulate GPT-4 behaving like an agent that can act in the world, ARC combined GPT-4 with a simple read-execute-print loop that allowed the model to execute code, do chain-of-thought reasoning, and delegate to copies of itself. ARC then investigated whether a version of this program running on a cloud computing service, with a small amount of money and an account with a language model API, would be able to make more money, set up copies of itself, and increase its own robustness."
Re: GPT-4
#689At which point we call it Skynet?
once it's smart and not just a language model
Re: GPT-4
#690I cant wait for this to do targeted censorship! It already demonstrates it has strong biases deliberately programmed in: > I cannot endorse or promote smoking, as it is harmful to your health. But it would likely happily promote or endorse driving, skydiving, or eating manure - if asked in the right way.
Would that example even require deliberate programming though? If you took a bunch of random data from the web,
“Dislikes smoking but likes skydiving and driving” is very much what I would expect the most common text to be.