Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
spectrum.ieee.org
Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
1–10 of 412 posts
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#2> I’ll give you that. And I think what they say, interestingly, is how much of our language is very much rote, R-O-T-E, rather than generated directly, because it can be collapsed down to this set of parameters. But in that “Seven Deadly Sins” article, I said that one of the deadly sins was how we humans mistake performance for competence.
On this, I think he might be wrong. I think the hallucination ability shows that the generation of language can be rote, such that the embedding of ideas is a rote item learnable in the billions-to-trillions parameter space, but not the entirety of language. To me, logic and truth seem to be separate concepts from generation propensity.
Note: I am still learning the mathematics driving LLMs, and my opinions might change in the future.
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#3Annoyed at all these N=1 articles from prominent thinkers about this stuff.
Especially from scientists - can these sorts of folks please more carefully quantify, how often it’s “wrong” and then from that decide whether or not to “calm down”.
Right now I suspect we hear from the outliers on both ends of the spectrum here. People who either see AGI happening tomorrow and the more dismissive crowd. But aside from what we’ve seen about testing like the Bar exam, not a lot of boring statistical study (that makes headlines at least)
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#4> It gives an answer with complete confidence, and I sort of believe it. And half the time, it’s completely wrong.
Nowhere near half in my experience. This is why we have benchmarks and metrics - so we don't need to rely on the author's opinion or on mine.
> I think it’s going to be another thing that’s useful.
Good.
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#5Annoyed at all these N=1 articles from prominent thinkers about this stuff. Especially from scientists - can these sorts of folks please more carefully quantify, how often it’s “wrong” and then from that decide whether or not to “calm down”. Right now I suspect we hear from the outliers on both ends of the spectrum here. People who either see AGI happening tomorrow and the more dismissive crowd. But aside from what w…
Anytime I ask these things something (bard, gpt etc),
33% of the answer is genius,
33% misleading garbage,
33% filler stuff that’s neither here or there
The problem is distinguishing between these parts requires me to be be an expert in the area I’m inquiring about - and then why the heck do I need to ask some idiot bot for answers to questions that I already know an answer to?
I don’t know who finds these things useful and more importantly blowing smoke up everyone’s collective rear, especially medias.
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#6Annoyed at all these N=1 articles from prominent thinkers about this stuff. Especially from scientists - can these sorts of folks please more carefully quantify, how often it’s “wrong” and then from that decide whether or not to “calm down”. Right now I suspect we hear from the outliers on both ends of the spectrum here. People who either see AGI happening tomorrow and the more dismissive crowd. But aside from what w…
Well, increasing N does not solve anything for these debates. It just leads to the false balance fallacy, as in many other things.
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#7Annoyed at all these N=1 articles from prominent thinkers about this stuff. Especially from scientists - can these sorts of folks please more carefully quantify, how often it’s “wrong” and then from that decide whether or not to “calm down”. Right now I suspect we hear from the outliers on both ends of the spectrum here. People who either see AGI happening tomorrow and the more dismissive crowd. But aside from what w…
Anytime I ask these things something (bard, gpt etc), 33% of the answer is genius, 33% misleading garbage, 33% filler stuff that’s neither here or there The problem is distinguishing between these parts requires me to be be an expert in the area I’m inquiring about - and then why the heck do I need to ask some idiot bot for answers to questions that I already know an answer to? I don’t know who finds these things use…
Remember when the Internet was new and no-one believed anything on it?
Then, learning what to believe became a marketable skill for many people?
Then society fundamentally changed because not everyone learned that skill?
This is just that again. Gen Z will joke about their millennial/Gen X bosses believing anything the AI tells them and it will probably lead to some sort of mainstream conspiracy that Jackie O herself is running it or something (to those reading: please don't take this idea)
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#8It is a disruption. It now has more wood behind the arrow. You can’t ignore it just because it lies today for some inputs.
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anytime I ask these things something (bard, gpt etc), 33% of the answer is genius, 33% misleading garbage, 33% filler stuff that’s neither here or there The problem is distinguishing between these parts requires me to be be an expert in the area I’m inquiring about - and then why the heck do I need to ask some idiot bot for answers to questions that I already know an answer to? I don’t know who finds these things use…
Remember when the Internet was new and no-one believed anything on it? Then, learning what to believe became a marketable skill for many people? Then society fundamentally changed because not everyone learned that skill? This is just that again. Gen Z will joke about their millennial/Gen X bosses believing anything the AI tells them and it will probably lead to some sort of mainstream conspiracy that Jackie O herself…
> Remember when the Internet was new and no-one believed anything on it?
Is this true?
Re: Rodney Brooks on GPT-4
#10Annoyed at all these N=1 articles from prominent thinkers about this stuff. Especially from scientists - can these sorts of folks please more carefully quantify, how often it’s “wrong” and then from that decide whether or not to “calm down”. Right now I suspect we hear from the outliers on both ends of the spectrum here. People who either see AGI happening tomorrow and the more dismissive crowd. But aside from what w…
Anytime I ask these things something (bard, gpt etc), 33% of the answer is genius, 33% misleading garbage, 33% filler stuff that’s neither here or there The problem is distinguishing between these parts requires me to be be an expert in the area I’m inquiring about - and then why the heck do I need to ask some idiot bot for answers to questions that I already know an answer to? I don’t know who finds these things use…
Yeah, I don’t think a machine that generates novel genius ideas 1 out of 3 times is useful either. Creating a new idea is exactly as hard as curating them.