Live data from Hacker News

GPT-4

openai.com

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4

#761
post #705
post #288

Interesting how quickly we are pushing ahead with obsoleting human cognition. It may bring many benefits, but I wonder if at some point this development should not be decided by society at large instead of a single well-funded entity that is in an arms race with its competitors. This endeavor is ultimately about replacing humanity with a more intelligent entity, after all. Might be that more humans should have a say…

every other day i am reminded about the state of AI and i feel complete despair. why do people not realize exactly what you just said, that this endeavor is ultimately about replacing humanity? what other long-term result could the concept of AI possibly have? its like the biggest mass psychosis that has ever existed. whenever i talk to people about this, they always parrot the same thing almost word for word: people…

I agree and really empathize with you on this. It's frustrating how hard it is to get people to care, I've even had someone throw McLuhan's tetrad at me, as if this is the equivalent of the introduction of phone apps.

We're racing into a fundamentally deep and irreversible societal shift, at least the same order of magnitude as the agricultural or industrial revolution. Maybe even many orders of magnitude deeper. Society will change so profoundly, it will be at least as unrecognizable as our lives would look to the average person from the Bronze age. There's absolutely no reason to assume this will be a good change. If it's not something I personally will have to live with, my descendants most certainly will.

I'll admit, I also draw a blank when I try to imagine what the consequences of all this will be, but it's a blank as in "staring into a pitch black room and having no idea what's in it" - not ignoring the darkness altogether. Mass psychosis is a good term for this, I think.

The collective blindspot failing to understand that there's NOTHING that says we're gonna 'make it'.

There's no divine being out there watching out for us. This isn't a fucking fairy tale, you can't assume that things will always 'work out'. Obviously they've always worked out until now because we're able to have this conversation, but that does NOT mean that things will work out indefinitely into the future.

Baseless conjecture: I think we are biased towards irrational optimism because it's an adaptive trait. Thinking everything will work out is better than not, because it means you're more likely to attempt escaping a predator or whatever despite a minuscule chance of success (which is better than not trying at all). It's another entry into the list of instincts we've inherited from our ancestors which bite us in the ass today (like being omnivorous, liking sweets, tribalism, urge to reproduce, etc).

You seem like you've given this a bunch of thought, and I wanna chat more about this and pick your brain about a few things. Have you ever thought about whether this intersects with the Fermi paradox somehow?

Drop me a line here: l7byzw6ao at mozmail dot com

Re: GPT-4

#762
post #688

That 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 amou…

I kind of wonder how far down the rabbit hole they went here.

Eg one of the standard preoccupations in this kind of situation is that the AI will be able to guess that it's being studied in a controlled environment, and deliberately "play dumb" so that it's given access to more resources in a future iteration.

Now, I don't think this is something you'd realistically have to worry about from GPT-4-simulating-an-agent, but I wonder how paranoid the ARC team was.

Honestly, it's already surprisingly prudent of OpenAI to even bother testing this scenario.

Re: GPT-4

#763
post #342

Let's check out the paper for actual tech details! > Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar. - Open AI

I've chosen to re-interpret "Open" as in "open the box to release the AI"/"open Pandora's box"/"unleash".

Re: GPT-4

#764

After watching the demos I'm convinced that the new context length will have the biggest impact. The ability to dump 32k tokens into a prompt (25,000 words) seems like it will drastically expand the reasoning capability and number of use cases. A doctor can put an entire patient's medical history in the prompt, a lawyer an entire case history, etc. As a professional...why not do this? There's a non-zero chance that i…

>A doctor can put an entire patient's medical history in the prompt

HIPAA violation https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/index.html

>a lawyer an entire case history, etc.

lawyer client confidentiality violation https://criminal-lawyers.ca/2009/07/31/the-lawyers-duty-of-c...

Re: GPT-4

#766

I found this competition with humans as a benchmark more than disturbing. By that measure gpt-4 already topped a lot of the average humans. But how can it be interpreted as a "gift" or "good product" to have AI that is human-like or super-human? Should we cheer? Sending contratulation mails? Invest? Hope for a better future? Try better? Self-host? What is the message in these benchmarks. Tests that have been designed…

More than anything I think this highlights that testing is mostly about pattern matching and fact recall rather than deep understanding of a subject.

Re: GPT-4

#767

After watching the demos I'm convinced that the new context length will have the biggest impact. The ability to dump 32k tokens into a prompt (25,000 words) seems like it will drastically expand the reasoning capability and number of use cases. A doctor can put an entire patient's medical history in the prompt, a lawyer an entire case history, etc. As a professional...why not do this? There's a non-zero chance that i…

> As a professional...why not do this? Because your clients do not allow you to share their data with third parties?

Then you really shouldn’t use Google Docs, or Photoshop Online, or host your emails in the cloud.

Re: GPT-4

#768
post #688

That 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 amou…

Oh wow, that reminded me so strongly of Lena by qntm [0], a story about an image of a person’s consciousness that is run and used to delegate and manage copies of itself. Fantastic short story.

[0] - https://qntm.org/mmacevedo

Re: GPT-4

#769
Looks amazing and getting a sense for their pricing... ChatGPT API pricing is insane and enables so much... Was really hoping we'd see another factor of 10 reduction in price - however wishful that was... In light of this it makes sense that they'll have. GPT4.5 and maybe it'll be 10x cheaper... followed by GPT 5 and it'll be 10 X pricer... at least hopefully this is the way forward...

Re: GPT-4

#770

This technology has been a true blessing to me. I have always wished to have a personal PhD in a particular subject whom I could ask endless questions until I grasped the topic. Thanks to recent advancements, I feel like I have my very own personal PhDs in multiple subjects, whom I can bombard with questions all day long. Although I acknowledge that the technology may occasionally produce inaccurate information, the…

If you don't know the subject, how can you be sure what it's telling you is true? Do you vet what ChatGPT tells you with other sources? I don't really know Typescript, so I've been using it a lot to supplement my learning, but I find it really hard to accept any of its answers that aren't straight code examples I can test.

> If you don't know the subject, how can you be sure what it's telling you is true?

People are reading too much into the comment. You wouldn't use ChatGPT to become as knowledgeable as obtaining a PhD. The idea is "If I wanted to ask an expert something, I have easy access to one now."

The real questions are:

1. For a given domain, how much more/less accurate is ChatGPT?

2. How available are the PhDs?

It makes sense to accept a somewhat lower accuracy if they are 10 times more available than a real PhD - you'll still learn a lot more, even though you also learn more wrong things. I'll take a ChatGPT that is accurate 80% of the times and is available all day and night vs a PhD who is accurate 90% of the times but I get only 30 minutes with him per week.

Post reply on HN