Live data from Hacker News

“Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

gist.github.com

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#81
post #72
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better, and I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something.

> I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better The logic failure in the above statement is probably worse than the logic failure of not being able to spontaneously compose a phrase with just 5-letter words - and slipping in one or two with a higher word-count. > I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something You'd be very surprised then. Most people fail…

>The logic failure in the above statement

And which alleged logic failure is that?

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#82
post #7

It now knows to communicate that the NASDAQ doesn't operate on Saturdays.

Did it know that before the last LLM failure was posted on Twitter or Hackernews? Trawling tech media for LLM failures can be assumed to be part of the "human feedback".

It doesn't continually learn anything. Though some models can do web browsing and be guided by the results of that.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#83
post #7

It now knows to communicate that the NASDAQ doesn't operate on Saturdays.

Did it know that before the last LLM failure was posted on Twitter or Hackernews? Trawling tech media for LLM failures can be assumed to be part of the "human feedback".

Yes, the models are not constantly learning. They only update their knowledge when they are retrained, which is pretty infrequently (I think the base GPT models have not been retrained, but the chat laters on top might).

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#84
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wrong. (An example of a sentence with only five letter words I wrote in less than 60 seconds)

I wasn't clear on how was using "better". Your example is better in that it fulfills the requirement, but I don't think it's as impressive as ChatGPT's answer. How long would it take to make a sentence that is at least 7 words (and also making sense, and ideally sounding good)?

In 5-10 minutes I came up with "Alarm! Naked actor moons queen below (under?) fruit trees, later hides under cheap hotel floor".

Note that I used one of those minutes to get a list of all 4 and 5 letter words, which I'm not sure whether the rules allow or not.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#85

What I find amazing about the original exchange was the profound lack of curiosity Knuth demonstrated. Because the model wasn’t flawless in performance he pinned it as a curiosity that was good at grammar and vacuous otherwise and wasn’t interested to hear how it improves. This reminds me of an awful lot of the computing field in this drama as it plays out. People that literally know how implausible any of these feat…

I much prefer the attitude of the chap that made the video "GPT 4 is smarter than you think" https://youtu.be/wVzuvf9D9BU

Instead of nit-picking flaws in what is a very early iteration of a revolutionary technology, he instead immediately started exploring ways of making it better and more useful.

Even with minimal effort that was essentially just copy-pasting some text around, he was able to show that the current way we use LLMs like GPT 4 is not the be-all and end-all of this type of technology.

I'm entirely convinced that we're just scratching the surface. It's like the first transistor, which was a crude, ugly, useless thing: https://images.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/1947-1-1.jp...

Just in the last two weeks(!), I've read about the following still-experimental methods for enhancing LLMs:

1. Plugging in "calculators" like Wolfram Alpha.

2. Adding vision input so they can understand equations, graphs, etc...

3. Filtering the output probability vector for certain allowed terms only ("YES", "NO", "MAYBE"), making them more useful in programmatically-invoked scenarios.

4. Similarly, filtering the output token list for syntax-validity, such as "valid JSON", "valid XML", etc... That is, instead of a purely random selection between to "top-n" output tokens, only valid tokens can be chosen, based on contextual syntax.

5. Storing embeddings in a vector database, giving LLMs medium-term memory, and the ability to index and reference sources precisely.

6. Efficient fine-tuning through Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), which allows desktop GPUs to tune a model overnight! This overcomes the "stale long-term memory" issue of ChatGPT, which only knows things up to September 2021. It could now read the news daily and "keep up".

7. External script harnesses that run multiple LLMs in parallel, with different prompts and/or different system messages. Some optimised for "idea generation", some optimised for "task completion", and then finally models tuned for "review and verification". Almost like a human team, multiple ideas can be generated, merged, reviewed, planned out, and then actioned. Check out "smol developer", which utilises Anthropic's 100K context window for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCo7YeTy-aE

This is just the beginning. Chat GPT 4 hasn't even been available for 3 months yet, and practically all of the above experimentation has been done with weaker models because GPT 4 still doesn't have generally-available API access! Similarly, the 32K context window version of the GPT 4 model isn't available to anyone except a lucky few.

What will 2024 bring!? Heck... what will H2 2023 bring?

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#86
post #80
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better Why? > I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something It only takes 60 seconds to test that on yourself. It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible.

>Why? For the same reason that "I don't know" is generally a better response than bullshitting. >It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible Those weren't requirements.

> Those weren't requirements.

Then it seems we don't disagree on anything concrete. You're just using a different rating system than me when I judge it as impressive compared to what an average person would produce in 60 seconds.

Not sure if this is a general principle of yours. If ChatGPT were able to write a 1000 word essay using all 5-letter words except for a single mistake, would you still find it unimpressive? Do you think it a tool or person who makes minor mistakes isn't useful? Or only when a tool/person makes major mistakes?

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#87
post #44
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if half the Internet does not know that a ballet is part of a larger show.

Half??

O.K., less than half know that the ballet is scheduled at appropriate times so the friends of the girls can get some bar time in without undue hassle.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#88

The sequence of these two threads is just too perfect. Almost likely someone is trying to make a point.

How so? Don Knuth wrote about his experience with ChatGPT. It was submitted to HN and made it to the front page. Someone saw this and decided to submit the same questions to GPT-4 and posted the results. This seems like a perfectly normal sequence of events.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#89

Worth noting also that, while asking Bing chat to "Tell me what Donald Knuth says to Stephen Wolfram about chatGPT" doesn't (yet) produce exactly the right result, it produced the following answer when asked what Donald Knuth says about chatGPT: > Donald Knuth, a computer scientist and mathematician known for his contributions to the field of computer programming, particularly in the area of algorithms and data struc…

I’d be curious to know if someone could get a more “valiant effort” version of those first two questions with some prompt engineering. E.g. if it was asked to roleplay a conversation with the proper disclaimers to override its objection to not knowing what they actually think.
Post reply on HN