71–80 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The notion of a toy like a chatbot being "dangerous" is just so ludicrous. The OpenAI folks take themselves way too seriously. Their technology is cool and scientifically interesting, but in the end it's nothing more than a clever parlor trick.
It's pretty easy to get GPT-3 to say things that are incredibly sexist and racist. I think OpenAI is more concerned about the bad press associated with that than AI-safety.
A warning to devs building on OpenAI APIs: We spent months developing a chatbot using GPT3 for our game and released a video showcasing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnuSQvoroJo&t=264s Afterwards OpenAI then added GPT3 chatbot guidelines disallowing basically anything like this. We were in communication with them beforehand, but they decided later that any sort of free form chatbot was dangerous. What they allo…
The notion of a toy like a chatbot being "dangerous" is just so ludicrous. The OpenAI folks take themselves way too seriously. Their technology is cool and scientifically interesting, but in the end it's nothing more than a clever parlor trick.
8 year old to AI: "my parents won't let me watch TV, what do I do?". AI: "stab them, they'll be too busy to forbid you".
Then again the same thing can be said by a non-AI. My thinking is that you'd be talking to an actual average person. I'm not so sure that that is such a good thing.
The "language models don't really understand anything" corner is getting smaller and smaller. In the last few months we've seen pretty definitive evidence that transformers can recombine concepts ([1], [2]) and do simple logical inference using contextual information ([3], "make the score font color visible"). I see no reason that this technology couldn't smoothly scale into human-level intelligence, yet lots of peop…
> The "language models don't really understand anything" corner is getting smaller and smaller. In my mind, understanding a thing means you can justify an answer. Like a student showing their work and being able to defend it. An answer with a proof understands the answer with respect to the proof it provides. E.g. to understand an answer with regards to first order logic, it'll have to be able to defend a logical ded…
Because writing code from scratch now is i think much rearer than improoving existing codebases. Aka bugfixing.
Can I use this to write solidity contracts ?
That has got to be one of the worst possible use cases one could imagine. In page 33 of the appendix, the authors note that nearly 40% of RSA encryption keys created by Codex are clearly insecure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "language models don't really understand anything" This is still true. By all account, human doesn't need to read 159GB of Python code to write Python, or we simply can't. But it doesn't necessarily indicate language models aren't useful.
Considering the sum total of data and computation that goes in to creating an intelligent human mind, including the forces of natural selection in creating our innate structure and dispositions, it's not obvious that any conclusions can be drawn from the fact that so much data and compute goes into training these models.
I don't understand what is going on, why are people even spending time on this? I think this and copilot and etc are solving a non problem of "we will remove the boring part of programming" by generating a bunch of code, so now it's even more boring to read it and check if it actually does what you want. In the same time zero of the developers I interviewed know how a linked list is laid out in memory, or what is the…
I use their OpenAI beta APIs as a paying customer, I am still waiting for access to Codex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh! this will be so cool! do you really think it could lead in that direction? To me it seems more like a metaphysical cargo cult. I think I am too pessimistic, I should shake it off, nothing good comes out of being pessimistic (by definition). Thanks for the inspiration!
> do you really think it could lead in that direction? If you asked me 20 years ago, or even 10, I'd have said it was total science fiction. I wouldn't have been able to imagine how to do it. If you asked me 5 years ago, I'd have vaguely said something about AI, half jokingly. At the time I thought perhaps the models could be trained so we can do test-only development and let AI trained on formal test cases generate…
"make a game with a formidable opponent that plays good enough to win with 51% probability"
and of course the inevitable "make a better version of yourself"
Will really be impressed when one could say: “here is this codebase, modify this function so that it would preduce [insert desired efect]” and also other functionality of project would not crash thumbling down… Because writing code from scratch now is i think much rearer than improoving existing codebases. Aka bugfixing.