71–77 of 77 posts
There's simply no scientific basis for equating the skills of a transformer model to a human of any age or skill. They work so differently, that it makes absolutely zero sense. GPTs fail at playing simple tic-tac-toe like games, which is definitely not a smart highschooler level of intelligence. It can write a very sophishticated summary of scientific papers, which is way above high-schooler level. The basis of this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a link to the one that I can put 50 of them on the floor and it will send me back an excel file? I'd like to test it out compared to ChatGPT as I'm going to be implementing "AI" across the whole 700+ person business.
lol good luck doing that with GPT. Right now I can tell you you’ll have missing or malformed or incorrect data, and it will be faster to just pass each one individually through a rudimentary scanner than to sit and figure out which one is correct and which is wrong from the 50 card picture
This is a convenient mental shortcut that doesn't correspond to reality at all.
There's simply no scientific basis for equating the skills of a transformer model to a human of any age or skill. They work so differently, that it makes absolutely zero sense. GPTs fail at playing simple tic-tac-toe like games, which is definitely not a smart highschooler level of intelligence. It can write a very sophishticated summary of scientific papers, which is way above high-schooler level. The basis of this…
where have you seen GPT-4 fail at tic-tac-toe?
It does not make my point moot however. Take a look at the ARC challenge. Simple reasoning tasks that the models have not yet seen: https://arcprize.org/play?task=00576224
All models fail miserably on this, because they rely more on memorization and less on logic or reasoning. Simply cherry picking strikingly good responses like the author did proves nothing about model intelligence. I am pretty confident however, that after a couple tries a highschooler could do these types of tasks without issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. You can't even define some of those words or know how to measure or identify them in humans. Well, foreign language learners do "reading comprehension tests" but an LLM can already ace that and it's not really the same meaning of the word. For reasoning you can write out the logic of your reasons, so there's that. But that's absolutely not required for AGI. People can already go a long way (often further th…
I think most people would agree there’s more to intelligence than language. LLMs don’t have anything except language, so they are not intelligent.
I’m very skeptical of any future prediction whose main evidence is an extrapolation of existing trendlines. Moore’s Law - frequently referenced in the original article - provides a cautionary tale for such thinking. Plenty of folks in the 90’s relied on a shallow understanding of integrated circuits and computers more generally to extrapolate extraordinary claims of exponential growth in computing power which obvious…
There is a critical focus in the article on algorithmic improvements. Much harder to measure and predict, but I think there is a good case to be made that recent progress has not just been quantitative.
> uses your softwares This grammatical mistake drives me nuts. I notice it is common with ESLs for some reason.
I am non-native speaker and can confirm that I can't remember how many times my grammar checker complains about my uses of "softwares" and "taxons"
Of course it is more complicated than this and it can be broken for effect ("still waters")