Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-4

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4

#951

Post by autograd0 »

hooande wrote: post #584

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…

> edit (addition): What % of people can hold 25,000 words worth of information in their heads, while effectively reasoning with and manipulating it? I'm guessing maybe 10% at most, probably fewer. And they're probably the best in their fields. Now a computer has that ability. And anyone that has $20 for the OpenAI api can access it. This could get wild.

It's true that most humans cannot do this, but loading words and contexts into your working memory is not the same as intelligence. LLMs excel at this kind of task, but an expert in a field such as medicine, isn't loading an entire medical report into their working memory and then making decisions or creating new ideas using that information. There are other unsolved aspects to our intelligence that are not captured by LLMs, that are still required to be an expert in some field, like medicine.

Still an incredible leap forward in AI technology, but I disagree with the implication that the best experts in a field are simply loading words from some text and reasoning with and manipulating it.

Re: GPT-4

#952

Post by pixel_tracing »

oezi wrote: post #879
mk_stjames wrote: post #577

I just finished reading the 'paper' and I'm astonished that they aren't even publishing the # of parameters or even a vague outline of the architecture changes. It feels like such a slap in the face to all the academic AI researchers that their work is built off over the years, to just say 'yeah we're not telling you how any of this is possible because reasons'. Not even the damned parameter count. Christ.

Can anybody give an educated guess based on the published pricing or reading between the lines of the report? How big is this model and what did they do differently (ELI5 please)?

You could copy the abstract now and ask GPT4 to explain itself in the style of ELI5

Re: GPT-4

#953

Post by naasking »

d3ckard wrote: post #600
hooande wrote: post #584

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…

I must have missed the part when it started doing anything algorithmically. I thought it’s applied statistics, with all the consequences of that. Still a great achievement and super useful tool, but AGI claims really seem exaggerated.

> I must have missed the part when it started doing anything algorithmically. I thought it’s applied statistics, with all the consequences of that.

This is a common misunderstanding. Transformers are actually Turing complete:

* On the Turing Completeness of Modern Neural Network Architectures, https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.03429

* On the Computational Power of Transformers and its Implications in Sequence Modeling, https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09286

Re: GPT-4

#954

Post by somewhat_drunk »

00F_ wrote: post #705
Sol- wrote: 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…

>humans wont be hired to do anything if humans are the worst at doing literally any task. and what are the consequences of such a world?

An economic system has two purposes: to create wealth, and to distribute wealth.

The purpose of an economic system is not to provide people with jobs. Jobs are just the best way we've found thus far to create and distribute wealth.

If no one has to work but wealth is still being created, then we just need to figure out a new way to distribute wealth. UBI will almost certainly be a consequence of the proliferation of AI.

Re: GPT-4

#955

Post by cmccart »

oska wrote: post #835
maxdoop wrote: post #265

The comments on this thread are proof of the AI effect: People will continually push the goal posts back as progress occurs. “Meh, it’s just a fancy word predictor. It’s not actually useful.” “Boring, it’s just memorizing answers. And it scored in the lowest percentile anyways”. “Sure, it’s in the top percentile now but honestly are those tests that hard? Besides, it can’t do anything with images.” “Ok, it takes imag…

I will continually push back at the concept of 'Artificial Intelligence'. It's a science fiction conceit, a fantasy, and I don't think it is ever possible to achieve (creation of an actual artificial intelligence). And people who do think tat are, imo, fantasists. That being said, in the field of machine learning there are significant things being achieved. I was wowed by DeepMind's AlphaZero and its achievements in…

Could you please elaborate on the distinction that you see between "artificial" intelligence and whatever it is that we as humans possess? Furthermore, what specific aspects of this intelligence are unachievable by an AI? Is it a "human intelligence is non-computational" line of thinking?

Re: GPT-4

#956

Post by dalmo3 »

Sol- wrote: 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…

There's no single entity that decided AI should become ubiquitous. Society at large has decided. Everyone who touches chatgpt wants more of it, and better. OpenAI just built the tool.

Re: GPT-4

#957

Post by whitemary »

jsheard wrote: post #468
Imnimo wrote: post #218

A 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…

Thanks! This is the most concise example I've found to illustrate the downfalls of these GPT models.

Re: GPT-4

#958

Post by VikingCoder »

hackernewds wrote: post #852
AJRF wrote: 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…

It could realistically already trade in the markets, drive political leanings on social media, create bank runs, etc.

Sell Robot Insurance...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Gh_IcK8UM

Re: GPT-4

#959

Post by yunwal »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #814
hooande wrote: post #584

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? Unless GPT-4 is running locally on our own computers, there's absolutely no way dumping a patient's entire medical history into this thing could possibly be considered ethical or legal.

I'm sure at some point OpenAI will start signing BAAs

Re: GPT-4

#960

Post by rodolphoarruda »

hooande wrote: post #584

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…

Yep, butlerian jihad feelings about this.
Post reply on HN