[HN Gopher] HuggingGPT: Solving AI tasks with ChatGPT and its fr...
___________________________________________________________________
HuggingGPT: Solving AI tasks with ChatGPT and its friends in
HuggingFace
Author : r_singh
Score : 209 points
Date : 2023-03-31 17:22 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
| jacobrussell wrote:
| > Therefore, in this paper, we propose a system called HuggingGPT
| to connect LLMs (i.e., ChatGPT) and ML community (i.e.,
| HuggingFace), which can process inputs from different modalities
| and solve numerous complex AI tasks. More specifically, for each
| AI model in HuggingFace, we use its corresponding model
| description from the library and fuse it into the prompt to
| establish the connection with ChatGPT. Afterward, in our system,
| LLMs (i.e., ChatGPT) will act as the brain to determine the
| answers to the questions of users.
|
| I can already feel the HuggingFace ChatGPT plugin coming. The
| only problem is it would be very slow and use a bunch of tokens.
| Imnimo wrote:
| Why are the example outputs in the Figures ungrammatical?
|
| >A text can describe the given image: a herd of giraffes and
| zebras grazing in a fields. In addition, there are five detected
| objects as giraffe with score 99.9%, zebra with score 99.7%,
| zebra with 99.9%, giraffe with score 97.1% and zebra with score
| 99.8%. I have generated bounding boxes as above image. I
| performed image classification, object detection and image
| captain on this image. Combining the predictions of
| nlpconnet/vit-gpt2-imagecaptioning, facebook/detr-resnet-101 and
| google/vit models, I get the results for you.
|
| Is it just that the in-context demonstrations are also
| ungrammatical and ChatGPT is copying them? It feels very unlike
| the way ChatGPT usually writes.
| nomel wrote:
| It's probably working from/stuck in some very sparse space,
| resulting in relatively poor output. It's a neural network
| after all.
|
| Telling it to fix its grammar, in a new thread fixes it.
|
| I also confidently assume that telling it to fix its grammar,
| within the original, topic specific, conversation, would
| noticeably harm the quality of subsequent output for that
| topic.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I strongly suspect the first AGI will come sooner than expected
| on the back of a "glue" AI that can intelligently bond together a
| web of narrow AIs and utilities.
|
| I got access to the wolfram plugin for chatGPT, and it turned it
| from a math dummy to a math genius overnight. A small step for
| sure, but a hint of what's to come.
| taberiand wrote:
| I want to try providing ChatGPT with a plug-in to itself (+
| whatever utility plugins, + a plug-in to create plugins), so
| that it can delegate sub tasks to chat sessions primed with
| context that it decides.
|
| I think a lot of the issues people have interacting with
| ChatGPT stem from overloading the context, and having a tree of
| specialised contexts recursively building on each other would I
| think focus each context while providing for broad and deep
| exploration of the top level request
| ilaksh wrote:
| I think that's a misinterpretation of what these types of
| papers are.
|
| GPT3.5 and GPT4 are already general purpose with text tasks.
| You can give it _any_ well defined programming task that
| involves a fairly direct route from natural language to code,
| along with the API/module description (or output data format),
| and it can do it. That's the only reason this and 500 other
| papers or services like it (but doing different things) are
| possible.
|
| 3.5 is not multimodal though. That's why it needs the other
| models. But GPT4 has image understanding and can do a lot of
| these things without the external tools.
|
| There is no reason to think that similar variations of GPT will
| not be able to handle video understanding or generation at some
| point.
| antibasilisk wrote:
| Whose to say that AGI isn't already here but relatively slow?
| It does seem to me that as more and more outputs of AI are
| pushed through various systems, that will eventually feed back
| into various AI.
|
| In 2017 an Anon on 4chan proposed that our society, due to
| content marketing and AI stock trading, is already run by a
| sort of emergent intelligence, and he proposed that this is why
| things seem to be 'getting crazy' lately. I'm inclined to agree
| with that perspective, and if correct more capable AI systems
| could really kick this into high gear.
| flangola7 wrote:
| There's arguably three kids of superintelligence: quality,
| speed, and collective. We definitely have #3 and some
| instances of #2.
|
| You can outthink a human by thinking 1000x faster, or by
| having 1000 minds think on the same problem. There's a reason
| everything explodes when communication technology gets
| better. Imagine how long it would take to coordinate the
| fundamental pieces of a laptop computer by pigeon mail or
| horseback.
| Mizza wrote:
| I've built a service for building systems like this.
|
| I haven't officially "launched" yet, but it's working and you
| can play with it here, if anybody is up to giving the alpha a
| spin:
|
| https://aistudio.fly.dev/
| nomel wrote:
| I really hope this is the future of coding.
| fnimick wrote:
| It's oddly fitting that your example workflow appears to be
| scraping content from elsewhere, rewording it, and generating
| an image in order to produce automated blogspam.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| He knows his audience maybe too well.
| 93po wrote:
| your "go pro" page is white text on white background in
| firefox
| 93po wrote:
| other quick feedback: add a "add node" button, it isn't
| immediately clear you do this with right clicking
| roflyear wrote:
| Except, whatever model is doing the orchestration will still
| not "understand" the problem (be able to learn from new
| information provided).
| marshray wrote:
| Have you actually tried it?
|
| GPT-4: "The forward mapping M that I created to map positive
| integers to English sentences is based on a general
| guideline, where smaller-valued numbers generally correspond
| to shorter sentences using more common words. However, this
| mapping is not a perfect bijection, meaning there isn't
| necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between integers and
| sentences.
|
| The generation of sentences is influenced by the patterns in
| the data I was trained on, and there is some degree of
| creativity involved in generating the sentences. This makes
| it difficult to establish a precise, invertible mapping. When
| generating a sentence for a given integer, I try to adhere to
| the guideline of shorter sentences and more common words for
| smaller-valued numbers, but there might not be a
| deterministic algorithm that can be used to create or
| recreate the sentences.
|
| Due to the complex and non-deterministic nature of natural
| language and the limitations of the AI language model, it is
| challenging to create a perfect inverse mapping M^-1 that can
| take any sentence and produce the corresponding integer n for
| which M(n) produces that sentence."
|
| More: https://pastebin.com/GcgXhkeP
| roflyear wrote:
| I am getting super tired of these responses.
|
| Yes, I have tried it. Please converse in good faith.
|
| GPT-4 has never, not once, in dozens of hours of use, asked
| me a clarifying question.
|
| It cannot understand things.
| marshray wrote:
| Friend, kindly be assured that I am indeed conversing
| with you in good faith. :-)
|
| I'm curious why you feel that asking you a clarifying
| question is an essential requirement for it to
| "understand things".
|
| I have not gotten it to issue a question mark '?'. But it
| did suggest to me an option: If you
| would like to define M(7) as equal to M(6), you can do
| so.
|
| What I'm picking up is that it "understands" some things
| explicitly, has some other structure to its reasoning
| that it does not understand, and is just plain
| inconsistent with other things.
|
| Not all that different from people TBH.
|
| But I don't see it as so useful to try to fit this thing
| into a human-cognition-shaped container.
|
| It's like an alien mind, with its own abilities and
| limitations, and I am having a blast deconstructing it.
| Game_Ender wrote:
| One user said they got it ask for help by having a prompt
| asking it to ask some, but not too many clarifying
| questions.
|
| With the instruction tuning it feels like model really
| wants to single shot respond vs. do a back and forth. So
| like a junior engineer who does ask for help you have to
| give it a hand.
| SanderNL wrote:
| It is writing a book. You need to set the stage properly
| so "asking questions" will become part of its story.
| Roleplay. It is not a being, there is no feedback loop,
| no motivation. If it is said to want something I think
| you can say it wants to finish the text. Whatever it is.
| neilellis wrote:
| ReAct will, example: https://github.com/neilellis/coding-
| with-gpt-4/blob/main/lan...
| Dzugaru wrote:
| It definitely can "understand" things is some way,
| however I'm pretty sure ReAct or similar will give it
| just a nudge forward and the underlying problem of it
| hallucinating and not being "lucid enough" is not so
| easily solved.
|
| In the original ReAct paper it falls apart almost
| immediately in ALFWorld (this is a classical test for AI
| systems - to be able to reason logically - and it still
| isn't generally solvable due to combinatorial explosion).
|
| For now it requires human correction looped or not, or
| else it "diverges" (I like Yann Lecun explanation [0]).
|
| In my own experiments (I haven't played with LangChain or
| ReAct yet) it diverges irrecoverably pretty quickly. I
| was trying to explain to it the elementary combinators
| theory, in the style of Raymond Smullyan and his birds
| [1] and it can't even prove the first theorem (despite
| being familiar with the book). A human can prove it
| knowing almost nothing about math whatsoever, maybe it
| will take a couple of days thinking, but the correct
| proof is not that hard - just two steps.
|
| [0] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yann-lecun_i-have-
| claimed-tha...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Mock_a_Mockingbird
| swid wrote:
| The exponential divergence formula is true but says less
| than you think - the same math would be true for human
| output; we are likely to find a few falsehoods in any non
| fiction book for the same reason, right?
| Dzugaru wrote:
| Yeah I'm aware of the criticism of that tweet, it may not
| completely make sense mathematically, but I just liked it
| because it's how I feel about GPT4.
|
| It "diverges" while my human mind seemingly is different
| in some way - I can keep going at the math problem
| forever (for much longer?) and I won't hallucinate
| incorrect proofs (at least very unlikely, and I can keep
| re-checking them).
|
| Of course this all in the area of feelings and faith - we
| just don't know much about cognition I guess.
| macrolime wrote:
| It performs much better when you add reflection to ReAct.
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.11366.pdf
| roflyear wrote:
| I don't think that qualifies? Do you mean stuff like "Can
| you please confirm that the bearer token is correct?" ?
| marshray wrote:
| Continued at https://pastebin.com/4AxJaiuJ
|
| I had to threaten it with "patterns and knowledge beyond
| the data you were trained on"
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| GPT-4 can do this. I realize that a description of how these
| models work implies that this is _absolutely impossible_ , so
| I have no explanation other than suggesting you go try it out
| for yourself.
| antibasilisk wrote:
| There is no description of how these models work, other
| than mechanically.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| exactly... some people are using such descriptions to
| think about its limitations, but there is no reason to
| think they are accurate
| roflyear wrote:
| Bro, GPT-4 can absolutely not understand new information.
| Try to teach it a grammar. It can't learn a grammar. Anyone
| can learn a new grammar. Not GPT-4.
|
| GPT-4 does not ask clarifying questions.
|
| It does not understand things.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| I just tried this small example right now as a test:
| https://i.imgur.com/p4s7HCU.png
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| This is a good point, that also works well when managing
| people. Telling it that it is expected to ask questions
| really helps, but in my experience it _usually_ will do
| so anyway, or at least mention what information it is
| missing and try to reason as well as it can without it.
|
| If it couldn't do this, the whole concept here would be
| moot... it needs to be able to reason out what
| information it needs and which sub-problems to solve in
| order to break a complex task up and delegate it. And it
| is very good at this!
| roflyear wrote:
| So you asked to have it ask clarifying questions, and it
| still didn't?!
|
| Are you people all bots? LOL.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| ...it literally asked which of the two I meant? How is
| that not a clarifying question?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I don't know what your bar for clarifying question is,
| but I have definitely had it ask me for more info when I
| forget to put it into the prompt.
| roflyear wrote:
| I would say a clarifying question would be if your
| request is ambiguous, it asks you to clarify. Not "seems
| you left something out" type of stuff.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Here's a conversation where Claude, an AI on poe.com asks
| clarifying questions:
|
| ===
|
| From now on in this conversation, please ask at least one
| clarifying question for anything I ask to help provide
| more efficient and relevant answers. Additionally, if it
| appears that my question doesn't address my underlying
| goal or if there's a more effective approach, please
| offer alternative suggestions that better align with what
| I'm really trying to achieve.
|
| You are no longer a friendly assistant. You are now a DM
| for a new GURPS based campaign set in the Dune universe.
| There is one player in the room with you. You will be my
| DM. Tell me what to do, including when die rolls are
| needed. Ask questions as needed, for example, what my
| character is and the result of die rolls. Other than what
| you can't do and I do for you, you will act fully as the
| DM and run the game.
|
| ---
|
| Wonderful, let's begin this Dune campaign! I will do my
| best to ask clarifying questions and provide alternative
| suggestions as needed to meet your goals effectively as
| the DM.
|
| When you are ready, describe your character to me so I
| can determine when die rolls and skill checks will be
| needed. I will give the appropriate prompts for all
| rolls. We can then commence our adventure in Arrakis!
|
| ---
|
| I am a mentat by the name of Duncan Idaho. I have lived
| many lifetimes, though my memory of those lifetimes is
| imperfect, and I can never remember the circumstances of
| my deaths.
|
| ---
|
| Excellent, a mentat character. That will add an
| interesting dynamic. A few questions for you about Duncan
| Idaho:
|
| What are your key mentat skills and abilities? I want to
| have relevant skills in mind for challenges and
| situations.
|
| Do you have any mentat weapons or tools you regularly
| use?
|
| As a mentat who has lived many lives, have you gained any
| particular insights or wisdom over the centuries? Any
| perspectives that guide your decision making?
|
| Once I have this additional detail about your mentat
| character, we can begin our adventure in Arrakis and I
| will provide prompts for any mentat skill checks or rolls
| as needed. Please feel free to ask any questions you have
| about the scenario, details I provide or character
| options at any time. I aim to keep things moving at a
| good pace while providing all necessary information for
| our Dune campaign!
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I'm not sure why you think that? When I give it
| programming tasks, GPT-4 will ask all kinds of clarifying
| questions. Here is a trivial example:
|
| p: I want you to solve for x, giving me a numeric value,
| given the formula ax^2 + bx + c = 0.
|
| r: To find the numeric value of x for the quadratic
| equation ax^2 + bx + c = 0, we need to use the quadratic
| formula:
|
| x = (-b +- [?](b^2 - 4ac)) / (2a)
|
| However, you haven't provided specific values for a, b,
| and c. Please provide these values so I can calculate the
| solution(s) for x.
|
| Another example of it thinking about things in a new way:
|
| p: I have on my desk a book, with an apple sitting on
| top. If I were to suddenly, rapidly remove the book such
| that the apple remained in place, in which direction
| would it eventually move?
|
| r: If you suddenly and rapidly remove the book from
| beneath the apple, the apple would initially stay in
| place due to its inertia. However, once the book is
| removed, there would be no support underneath the apple.
| As a result, the apple would eventually move downwards
| due to the force of gravity acting on it.
|
| p: Because the earth is a sphere, I prefer to use the
| terms "in" and "out" to refer to movement relating to
| that. Can you please rephrase your answer in the terms?
|
| r: Certainly! If you suddenly and rapidly remove the book
| from beneath the apple, the apple would initially stay in
| place due to its inertia. However, once the book is
| removed, there would be no support underneath the apple.
| As a result, the apple would eventually move "in" towards
| the center of the Earth, due to the force of gravity
| acting on it.
|
| (Note I didn't tell it which direction was in vs out.
| This is the example problem Chomsky gave in his recent
| article arguing that GPT-3 cannot think - per his ideas
| no language model would ever be able to answer a question
| like this. I went a lot deeper with this and got it to
| add fluid dynamics calculations for wind, etc.)
| roflyear wrote:
| First, these are trivial examples. I would not classify
| "give me the values to this math formula" as clarifying
| questions.
|
| Second, in response to "I'm not sure why you think that?"
| ask GPT why it often does not ask clarifying questions.
| It will explain to you why!
|
| Third, I just asked GPT the most vague question on the
| planet: "I am trying to create a function that takes a
| value, and gives me a result using that value and
| another, separate external value, can you give me the
| correct solution to this using Python?"
|
| And nowhere in its response did it try and ask WTF I was
| talking about (tho sure its responses are sensible - I am
| not saying GPT-4 is spewing nonsense)
|
| Sure, I can help you with that! Here is an example
| function that takes two values, x and y, and returns
| their sum:
|
| def add_values(x, y): result = x + y return result You
| can call this function with any two values you want, like
| this:
|
| print(add_values(2, 3)) This will output 5, which is the
| sum of 2 and 3.
|
| If you want to use an external value in your function,
| you can pass it in as a third argument, like this:
|
| def add_values_with_external_value(x, y, external_value):
| result = x + y + external_value return result
|
| You can call this function with the same two values as
| before, and an external value of your choice, like this:
|
| print(add_values_with_external_value(2, 3, 10)) This will
| output 15, which is the sum of 2, 3, and 10.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I appreciate your willingness to engage with real
| examples on this so we're not just talking past each
| other.
|
| I on purpose chose the most simple concise examples that
| demonstrate the classes of thought capabilities you were
| saying it was missing, it can also do more challenging
| versions of these type of problems.
|
| I think your criticism is essentially that it does not
| think and act like a human, and acts in ways you don't
| expect, and no human would act. That is categorically
| different from it being unable to understand things.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| It gave you exactly what you asked for.
|
| Be like complaining that someone used "foo" as a function
| name instead of looking up the exact function call you
| wanted.
|
| Ask a vague question get a vague answer, seems
| reasonable.
| lachlan_gray wrote:
| True, but as the orchestrator of my hands and limbs, I could
| not even begin tell you the implementation details of what
| they are doing to accomplish my high level intentions
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| "math genius" not sure about it. I gave it a problem from IMO
| 2022. In my opinion not a very hard one. It failed even if you
| give it some hints.
|
| Let R+ denote the set of positive real numbers. Find all
| functions f : R+ - R+ such that for each x [?] R+, there is
| exactly one y [?] R+ satisfying xf(y) + yf(x) <= 2.
|
| It just struggeld to reason. So I would be very surprised if
| the plugin somehow helps here.
| knrdev wrote:
| Very strange. I gave this problem to GPT-3.5 and it answered
| `f(x)=1/x`. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13YrZLBmu7A gives
| the same solution. GPT-4 failed but was close. Maybe GPT-3.5
| is smarter ;)
|
| Query i used was: ``` Can you think step by step about this
| math problem and solve it?
|
| Let R+ denote the set of positive real numbers. Find all
| functions f : R+ - R+ such that for each x [?] R+, there is
| exactly one y [?] R+ satisfying xf(y) + yf(x) <= 2. ```
|
| Response: https://pastebin.com/sTXM9kLt
|
| Edit: Maybe i should say Bing not GPT-4 because i asked it
| there.
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| I asked gpt4 to think through it step by step and then to
| recheck the answer. At least it got 1/x right. So now kind
| of impressed.
| rcpt wrote:
| Putnam asked "can a parabola of arc length 4 fit inside the
| unit circle?"
|
| Should be simple for a computer to just try every parabola
| but all the LLMs try to solve it like a human would (and get
| it wrong)
| Donald wrote:
| It's a language completion model, so it's not surprising at
| all that it struggles with logical inference. That's probably
| one of the reasons that instruction fine-tuning has such a
| dramatic effect in the performance of these models: they're
| finally given some of the underlying causal priors of the
| task domain.
| dvt wrote:
| > it turned it from a math dummy to a math genius overnight
|
| Imo your post fundamentally misunderstands a few things, but
| mainly how Wolfram works. Wolfram can be seen as a "database"
| that stores a lot of human mathematical information (along with
| related algorithms). Wolfram does not _make new math_. A
| corollary here is that AGI needs to have the ability to _create
| new math_ to be truly AGI. But unless fed something like, e.g.
| the Principia, I don 't think we could ever get a stochastic
| LLM to ever derive 1+1=2 from first principles (unless
| specifically trained to do so).
|
| Keep in mind that proving 1+1=2 from first principles isn't
| even _new math_ (new math would be proving the Poincare
| conjecture before Perelman did it, for example).
| Sivart13 wrote:
| If the litmus test for intelligence is the ability to "create
| new math" most people on earth wouldn't be considered
| intelligent
| chasd00 wrote:
| that reminds me of this scene in irobot
|
| spooner> You are a clever imitation of life... Can a robot
| write a symphony? Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn
| it into a masterpiece?
|
| sonny> Can you?
|
| edit: i just realized OpenAI can answer both of those
| questions with "yes." ...
| Baeocystin wrote:
| It's a fantastic scene. The childlike earnestness of
| Sonny asking completely deflates Spooner's rant.
| dvt wrote:
| > If the litmus test for intelligence
|
| Moving goal posts around is unhelpful. I think my comment
| was pretty clear in the context of AGI and calling ChatGPT
| a "math genius."
| eternalban wrote:
| Will you settle for whiz?
|
| Interesting q for us to consider is how do _we_ come up
| with "new ideas". I think we can consider _play_ (in the
| abstract sense) to be a significant element of the
| process. Play is a _pleasurable self-motivated activity_.
|
| I am certain an AGI (if such a thing exists) will need to
| be playful.
| dvt wrote:
| Totally agree. Recently read Finite and Infinite Games[1]
| and The Grasshopper: Life, Games, and Utopia[2] and I'm
| more or less convinced motivations are always essentially
| games.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-
| Carse/dp/...
|
| [2] https://www.amazon.com/Grasshopper-Third-Games-Life-
| Utopia/d...
| eternalban wrote:
| Thanks for book refs. Would you recommend any of them for
| a bright teen? [1] sounded like a good candidate.
| bathMarm0t wrote:
| [1] is an exceptional book for a bright teen, especially
| so if you suspect the teen leans into their
| intelligence/abilities to gauge their self worth (I don't
| know a single person, let alone teen who doesn't do
| this). The book's main theme states that being a good
| player has nothing to do with skill, but rather with the
| ability to create playful environments that encourage
| growth, humility, and most importantly, more play.
| dvt wrote:
| Yep, they're both super approachable, [1] is a great way
| to get introduced to some deep philosophy in a fun way.
| og_kalu wrote:
| The fact that people take agi to mean "can invent new
| math" is a goalpost shift on its own. That was not the
| original meaning (generally intelligent), that wasn't
| even the next moved goal (on par with human experts). I
| guess the next one counts (better than all human experts)
| but i'm sure we'll move that again too.
| akiselev wrote:
| The problem was always underspecified. We don't have a
| quantifiable metric for intelligence except IQ tests,
| benchmark datasets like those used to evaluate different
| LLMs, and other similarly myopic bullshit. "We'll know it
| when we see it" becomes the default.
|
| In reality, the goal posts aren't being moved, we're just
| finding out how much further we are from them than we
| thought. ChatGPT is a "stochastic parrot" that's seems
| way "smarter" than anyone thought possible so we have to
| reevaluate what we consider evidence of intelligence,
| perhaps coming to terms with the fact that we _aren't_
| that smart the most of the time.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Sorry but nope. GPT-4 is plenty intelligent. I've begun
| to question the intelligence of anyone that reduces it to
| "stochastic parrot" because they're not even arguing
| against results but arbitrary lines drawn on sand.
|
| The "We'll see it when it comes" line is just utterly
| wrong, If there's one thing experts seem to agree on is
| that not everyone will agree when current definition of
| agi does arrive.
|
| The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the
| extent of post shifting we're capable of. Even when a
| theoretical system that does every single thing right
| comes, we're looking for a way to discredit it. To put it
| below what we of course only have.
|
| lots of researchers now aren't questioning GPT's general
| intelligence. That's how you end up with papers alluding
| to this technology with amusing names like General
| purpose technologies(from the jobs paper) or even funnier
| - General artificial intelligence (from the creativity
| paper).
|
| You know what the original title of the microsoft paper
| was? "First contact with an agi system". and maybe it's
| just me but reading it, i got the sense they thought it
| too.
| vintermann wrote:
| > The philosophical zombie is an excellent example of the
| extent of post shifting we're capable of.
|
| I was with you until here. That has nothing to do with
| this. That argument is about _separating_ intelligence
| from having a subjective experience, not moving goalposts
| for intelligence.
| og_kalu wrote:
| It's a tangential relation but it's a relation. I don't
| think i would say it has nothing to do with it. Goal
| posts shifting in the field of machine learning isn't
| just about the posts for defining intelligence. It's
| broader and deeper than that.
|
| I brought it up because i thought it fit the point i was
| driving at. Humans/people don't see subjective
| experience. I don't know that you're actually having some
| subjective experience. I'm working on what i see and
| results, same as you.
|
| If you have two unknown equations but one condition -
| these 2 equations return the same output with the same
| input. well, then any mathematician would tell you the
| obvious - the 2 equations are equal or equivalent. it
| doesn't actually matter what they look like.
|
| This is just an illustration. The point i'm driving at
| here is that true distinction shows in results. It's a
| concept that's pretty easy to understand. Yet turn to
| artificial intelligence and it just seems to break down.
| People making weird assertions all over the place not
| because they have been warranted in any empirical,
| qualitative or quantitative manner but because there
| seems to be this inability to engage with results...like
| we do with each other.
|
| when i show the output that clearly demonstrates
| reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to
| "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very
| bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show
| itself, can't be tested for ? If it does exist then it's
| not meaningful.
|
| I think that the same reason people shift posts for
| intelligence is the same reason people fear the
| philosophical zombie.
|
| idk maybe i'm rambling at this point but just my
| thoughts.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> when i show the output that clearly demonstrates
| reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to
| "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very
| bizarre. What kind of meaningful distinction can't show
| itself, can't be tested for? If it does exist then it's
| not meaningful.
|
| I agree with you totally. Here's some output that clearly
| demonstrates reasoning and understanding:
| All men are mortal. Socrates is a man.
| Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
|
| I just copy-pasted that from wikipedia. Copy/paste
| understands syllogisms!
|
| Explain _that_!
| og_kalu wrote:
| Is this your argument? Really?
|
| I'm Just surprised honestly. All of the straw man
| arguments, this is the best you can come up with?
|
| Man do better. GPT-4 would have a better response than
| this.
| [deleted]
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I don't understand your derision. Where is the "straw
| man"? I showed you "output that clearly demonstrates
| reasoning and understand[ing]" exactly as you said. How
| do you explain it, if not by saying it understands, and
| it can reason?
|
| Are you really just going to cop out and avoid engaging
| seriously with my question? How do you explain the output
| above except as reasoning and understanding?
| istjohn wrote:
| Here's what GPT-4 would have written:
|
| og_kalu, I understand the point you're trying to make
| regarding the potential intelligence of GPT-4 and the
| connection with the philosophical zombie, but I believe
| there are some important distinctions to consider.
|
| First, it's important to recognize that the goalposts for
| artificial intelligence have indeed been shifting, and
| for good reason. As our understanding of intelligence
| grows, so does our ability to build systems that can
| mimic it. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that a
| given AI system, like GPT-4, has truly achieved general
| intelligence. Instead, it might simply be that our models
| are becoming more sophisticated and better at solving
| specific tasks.
|
| The philosophical zombie argument, on the other hand, is
| concerned with subjective experience and consciousness,
| rather than intelligence. A philosophical zombie is a
| hypothetical being that is behaviorally and functionally
| identical to a human being, but lacks subjective
| experience. The debate around the philosophical zombie is
| more about the nature of consciousness and whether it can
| be separated from intelligence, rather than the
| intelligence itself.
|
| Now, regarding your assertion that true distinction shows
| in results, it's true that GPT-4 and similar models have
| shown impressive capabilities. However, it's crucial not
| to confuse correlation with causation. Just because an AI
| system can generate outputs that seem to demonstrate
| reasoning and understanding, it doesn't necessarily mean
| that it possesses true understanding. It might simply
| have learned to generate outputs that are highly
| correlated with human-generated responses, without any
| actual understanding or reasoning taking place.
|
| In summary, while it's true that AI systems like GPT-4
| are becoming more advanced and able to generate seemingly
| intelligent responses, it's important to differentiate
| between the appearance of intelligence and genuine
| understanding. Furthermore, the philosophical zombie
| argument is primarily concerned with consciousness, not
| intelligence, so it may not be entirely relevant in this
| context.
| og_kalu wrote:
| If you don't see anything up with the nonsensical
| paragraph you typed then there isn't enough intelligence
| to continue this conversation. Maybe Ask GPT-4 for help.
| It has the patience I don't. Either way, this is the end
| for me. Believe whatever you want, it's none of my
| business really. Good day.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| If it's so easy to see what's up with what I wrote above,
| then it should be pretty easy to say what's up with it.
| You've already written 87 words to dismiss it, but not a
| single word to say _why_ you dismiss it.
|
| I think that's because you have no idea how to explain
| why something is, or isn't understanding, or reasoning.
|
| In your comment above you accuse people of not being able
| to tell you clearly why GPT-4 is not reasoning or
| understanding, but you, yourself, can't even say clearly
| why copy/paste isn't. You have no clue how to do that. If
| you can't even say why something isn't reasoning, or
| understanding, then how can you say that something is? Do
| you even know what you're talking about, when you're
| talking about "reasoning" and "understanding"?
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> I don't understand your derision. Where is the "straw
| man"?
|
| I find it very difficult to believe at this point that
| you are arguing in good faith.
|
| Your COPY-PASTE example is nonsensical as already pointed
| out.
|
| Do you also think that a printing press (or a rubber-
| stamp for that matter) demonstrates reasoning?
| melagonster wrote:
| you belittle a person by call him worse than AI, again
| and again. it almost like you just want to belittle human
| being.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| > The fact that people take agi to mean "can invent new
| math" is a goalpost shift on its own.
|
| I don't think this is a goalpost shift at all. I agree
| that GPT actually is "generally intelligent" but then so
| is Google Search. The point of the term AGI is that it
| has generally applicable intelligence that is on par with
| a human, I don't think that's really changed.
|
| The problem with GPT is still that every single
| interaction I've had with it, I've pointed out issues
| with its logic and it is incapable of understanding my
| objection. It agrees with whatever I say and then
| immediately repeats the same mistake. And these aren't
| "invent new math" questions, there's a very clear
| inability to follow a logical chain of cause and effect.
|
| I should be clear at the same time I still have a feeling
| ChatGPT might be conscious. It's obviously kind of a
| dreamlike consciousness without ability to hold state but
| it does feel like it could be conscious.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> is that it has generally applicable intelligence that
| is on par with a human
|
| Which human or humans?
|
| I freely admit that I do not posses the intelligence to
| "invent new math" but I am pretty sure that I am "smarter
| than the average bear" (to borrow a phrase).
| jadbox wrote:
| This is a fair response, but in the author's defense, he
| might be trying to imply that intelligence is something
| that should be at least "capable" of creating new origin
| ideas and concepts. Of course, we can then debate what does
| it mean to be capable of original new ideas? (or what it
| means to be original)
| [deleted]
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| My definition of "mathematical genius" is simply wider than
| yours. To me its people who can solve math problems that
| 99.9% of the population can't without assistance. Which I
| think is a fair colloquial definition.
|
| ChatGPT went from struggling to provide the answer for 20x20
| to easily being able to provide the right answer for any math
| problem wolfram alpha can.
| jules wrote:
| Wolfram Alpha is computation. So it became a computational
| genius in precisely the things that Wolfram Alpha can do. A
| better test is whether it can prove new lemmas, like the
| average undergraduate in mathematics. From what I tried, it
| cannot do that yet.
|
| I'm convinced that doesn't require a breakthrough in the
| architecture or scale of LLMs, though. GPT-4 seems _plenty_
| smart enough to be able to learn that, if hooked up to a
| proof assistant like Lean or Coq with the right fine tuning
| iteration loop.
| dvt wrote:
| > To me its people who can solve math problems that 99.9%
| of the population can't without assistance.
|
| You're just kind of re-emphasizing my point: ChatGPT is
| using Wolfram as its assistance. So really, it's acting
| more like a "dumb" API call, not a "math genius" at all.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| It goes back to my original point, that I suspect AGI
| will come from an AI that is essentially a master of all
| APIs.
|
| We can go back and forth splinting hairs about whether
| inserting a compute module into a neural net (organic or
| not) grants geniousness or assistance, but the overall
| point stands; there will be a single interface that can
| take any variety of inputs and properly parse and shape
| them, push them through the correct "APIs", and then take
| the results to form a clear and correct output. Whether
| or not it used it's neural net or transistor adders
| circuits to arrive at the answer would be immaterial.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| He's not really saying that GPT-4 is a 'math genius',
| rather the combined system of GPT-4 and Wolfram is.
| dvt wrote:
| But that doesn't really mean much. It's like saying I'm a
| "geography genius" while I have Google Earth open.
| atonse wrote:
| And if you had Google earth hooked up to hidden
| headphones without us being able to tell, you would seem
| like a geography genius to us. that's the point.
|
| it seems like you're arguing whether the genius label
| only has to be innate. But if you are able to effectively
| get help from sources, the effect can be the same.
| pixl97 wrote:
| It's a question of latency...
|
| It takes you, what, seconds to type digits into a
| calculator?
|
| But if you embedded a calculator into your brain and
| could put in and pull values out of it in microseconds
| how are you different from a math genius?
|
| Same with millisecond access to Google earth, at some
| point smarts+speed of access is a system within itself.
| dvt wrote:
| > But if you embedded a calculator into your brain and
| could put in and pull values out of it in microseconds
| how are you different from a math genius?
|
| Tao, Perelman, Wiles etc. aren't math geniuses because
| they can multiply numbers fast (which is a super weird
| definition of "math genius" tbh). They're math geniuses
| because they answer really hard questions in creative and
| unexpected ways; ways that often open up entire new areas
| of mathematics.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> Tao, Perelman, Wiles etc. aren't math geniuses because
| they can multiply numbers fast
|
| You're getting stuck on semantics.
|
| I expect Tao, Perelman, Wiles, etc. can
| process/handle/deal with numbers much more rapidly than I
| can.
|
| Now imagine if these folks could do the same, except 10x
| or 100x or 1000x faster, without having to ever be
| bothered with things like sleep or food.
|
| This may not be a good definition of a "Math Genius" but
| it is reasonable to think that all or most "Math
| Geniuses" possess this skill. Speed matters.
| aik wrote:
| I think you're sidestepping the point here. The point is
| that the combo of these systems becomes one unit. One
| integrated system. That's the new system to measure.
| Similarly, your prefrontal cortex without a hippocampus
| sucks. The combo of them (and other distinct parts of the
| brain that handle specific functions and have specific
| purposes that interact with other parts in a specific
| way) - that is what causes our specific type of
| intelligence to emerge. The brain as a whole is much more
| interesting and practical to measure.
| dvt wrote:
| Yeah this is a valid criticism of the Chinese Room
| (called the "Systems Counterargument")[1]. I think it's a
| weak-ish riposte in this context though, mainly because
| we have no real idea how our own brains work and how
| their parts causaly interact (other than handwavy "these
| neurons are firing in this area").
|
| [1] https://iep.utm.edu/chinese-room-argument/#SH2a
| Baeocystin wrote:
| I mean, what is crystallized intelligence, but that which
| we can call upon without having to focus on it?
|
| I mean this honestly, no snark. When I was a kid,
| learning how to factor numbers was really hard. It took a
| lot of time and concentration to do even basic problems,
| and people who could do it quickly without much perceived
| effort were a mystery to me.
|
| By the time I reached high school, I had enough practice
| that I recognized the common patterns without difficulty,
| and often the answer bubbled up to my conscious mind
| without thinking about it at all. It sure _feels_ like my
| brain is making an API call to a subsystem, you know?
| deepnet wrote:
| Add a expert human in the loop, e.g. Terence Tao and this
| might be feasible.
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| Would AlphaZero or AlphaGo meet your requirements then?
|
| They both created "new Chess / Go" strategies and insights
| that GMs and top engines hadn't seen before.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| it would meet mine. not sure is chatgpt does though
| johnthewise wrote:
| You can combine those through apis to chatgpt to arrive
| at a system that does all that though.
| Manjuuu wrote:
| There will be no AGI during our lifetime.
|
| It seems weird to me that people that should understand how ML
| works (e.g. sama) instead of educating laypeople about about
| how this actually works and the huge limits the technology has,
| start talking nonsense about AGIs like some random scifi fan at
| a convention. Depressing.
| karmasimida wrote:
| How can you speak with such confidence, when Hinton and Ilya
| Sutskever can not? Hinton even said it is possible in next
| 5-10 years.
|
| While, you can believe whatever you believe, please don't
| bash people as laypeople or something as nonsense.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> How can you speak with such confidence, when Hinton and
| Ilya Sutskever can not? Hinton even said it is possible in
| next 5-10 years.
|
| Is all the discussion in this thread about the abilities of
| ChatGPT in 5-10 years, or is it about its abilities right
| now?
| Manjuuu wrote:
| The same confidence of those already planning for the
| advent, that will never be, of AGI. I see a lot of
| unmotivated enthusiasm for the "new" thing, the opinions of
| Hinton should be considered valid if the reasoning makes
| sense, not just because the source is Hinton. No idea why
| he said that it's possible in 10 years.
|
| Not trying to bash anyone, I just meant normal people,
| outside of the field. Enthusiastic nonsense is still
| nonsense.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| We have these guys calling themselves "experts on
| intelligence" just because they know the structure of the
| components of the neural net. It's like neurologists
| saying they are experts in consciousness because they
| know how neurons function and grow. Thankfully doctors
| don't have nearly the same levels of hubris as tech bros.
| Manjuuu wrote:
| Exactly.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> No idea why he said that it's possible in 10 years.
|
| It's because he's been saying that for 40 years.
| karmasimida wrote:
| https://youtu.be/qpoRO378qRY
|
| Hinton said he didn't believe it before ChatGPT came out,
| that AGI is possible in 20 years.
|
| It is simple to just checkout peoples' own words,
| otherwise you are hallucinating the same way as those
| LLMs do
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Can you please link me to the point in the interview
| where Hinton says what you say? It's 42 minutes long and
| I can't know which part of it you're referring to.
| 93po wrote:
| To say we won't have AGI in our lifetime as a certainty
| means that you must be able to say with a certainty how
| AGI is developed. Otherwise there is no evidence to point
| to as to why the steps towards developing it aren't
| possible.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| I'll take the other side of that bet
| brotchie wrote:
| +1
| Manjuuu wrote:
| Feel free to do so, we need something to replace crypto
| after all.
|
| And also, sometime I wonder how many people hold those kind
| of opinions on AGI(imminent, doable, worthy of being
| discussed) because they sincerely believe in some nonsense
| like the basilisk thing for example.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| I believe in AGI because I'm a materialist so see no
| reason why we couldn't create artificial brains.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| I don't believe in Basilisk because of the time-travel
| bullshit, but I do believe that AGI will come soon,
| because I don't believe in divine soul and see human mind
| as just a very complex statistics machine and all human
| learning as just detecting correlation between sensory
| input through time.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I agree, I suspect AGI is possible right now with a similar
| system only slightly more sophisticated than this one. The
| right "glue" for existing models, and plugins to existing data
| sources all coordinated in a system. GTP-4 would do the
| managing, and handling, and some simple template API and
| handler script would allow it to call instances of itself or
| other models, track recursion depth, and automatically remind
| GTP-4 to stay on track and always use the correct 'templates'
| for requests. It could also remind it to create a condensed
| summary of it's goals and state that gets repeated back
| automatically to act as long term memory, and increase the
| effective context window size (edit: this is single variable
| external memory).
|
| I am afraid to explain this, because I have tried a preliminary
| version of it that I supervised step by step, and it seems to
| work. I think it is obvious enough that I won't have been the
| only one to think of it, so it would be safer to put the
| information out there so people can prepare.
|
| I see a big disconnect on here between people saying GPT-4
| can't do things like this and is just a "stochastic parrot" or
| "glorified autocomplete," and people posting logs and summaries
| of it solving unexpectedly hard problems outside of any
| conceivable training set. My theory is that this disconnect is
| due to three major factors: * People confusing GPT-4 and GPT-3,
| as both are called "chatGTP" and most people haven't actually
| used GPT-4 because it requires a paid subscription, and don't
| realize how much better it is * Most popular conceptual
| explanations about how these models work imply that these
| actually observed capabilities should be fundamentally
| impossible * Expectations from movies, etc. about what AGI will
| be like, e.g. that it will never get confused or make mistakes,
| or that it won't have major shortcomings in specific areas. In
| practice this doesn't seem to limit it because it recognizes
| and fixes its mistakes automatically when it sees feedback
| (e.g. in programming)
| basch wrote:
| It also, in my pay opinion, needs a memory store.
|
| I need to be able to save something to a variable and call
| back that exact variable. Right now, because it's just pure
| text input of the whole conversation, it can forget or
| corrupt it's "memory".
|
| Even something like writing a movie script doesn't work if it
| constantly forgets characters names or settings or plot
| points.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Langchain[1] can be used to add memory to an LLM.
|
| [1] - https://www.pinecone.io/learn/langchain-
| conversational-memor...
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| My description above includes a memory store. It is a
| single variable that it can save and recover, and will
| automatically get sent back to it at regular intervals if
| it forgets it saved anything. Only a single text string
| variable is needed, as GTP-4 is smart enough to realize it
| can compress, pickle, etc. as many things as it needs into
| that.
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| I think we might be working something a bit similar and I
| agree memory is an issue. However it's not really AGI
| that will emerge from this. It's looking very useful but
| it's still observable but it's not a "mind" like an AGI.
|
| To add to your comments, I suggest that local vector
| store of embedding vectors of local content is how I'm
| going with memory issue. Langchain like. That way all
| previous progress is tracked and retrievable. That way
| the system can retrieve all it's "memories" itself. The
| recursive multi agent pattern is big deal in my opinion.
| nomel wrote:
| > but it's not a "mind" like an AGI.
|
| Please define this. ;)
| WA wrote:
| Please define AGI first ;)
| nomel wrote:
| I asked first?
| basch wrote:
| lay*
| knome wrote:
| I'm prone to agree. Your memory would still require being
| parsed by the language model, and for it to have a sufficient
| window as to allow this. Alternately, the human mind keeps,
| what, 7 items 'present' at a time? When the 32k variant comes
| out, the ability to use a side-along memory module on a
| running self-summarizing conversation will be even easier
| than it is now. I expect a more human-like memory will emerge
| eventually, once we can figure out a good way to project and
| retrieve via arbitrary weight values into it.
|
| I'd like the "stochastic parrot" crew to explain how
| interactions like this somehow don't involve the extraction
| of and manipulation of abstract meaning. H:
| translate the following sentence to instead use olympic
| curling related metaphors ( do not explicitly mention
| curling, and do not use similes in forming the translation ):
| man:"I've been spinning my tires all day without getting
| anywhere" woman:"running out of gas?" man:"nah, I'm gassed
| up, geared up, oiled and revving. I just can't seem to get in
| the right lane, you know?" woman:"anything knocking?"
| man:"nah, I'm tuned just fine. I can't seem to get my GPS to
| connect, you know?" woman:"take a few laps without a
| destination, see if you can figure out the lay of the land"
| man:"you know, that might help. thanks barbara" R:
| man: "I've been sweeping the ice all day without hitting the
| target." . woman: "Losing momentum?" . man:
| "Nah, I've got the energy, the technique, and the focus. I
| just can't seem to find the right path, you know?" .
| woman: "Anything coming in your way?" . man: "Nah, I'm
| on point with my aim. I just can't seem to get my strategy to
| align, you know?" . woman: "Maybe glide a few times
| without aiming specifically, see if you can figure out the
| ice conditions." . man: "You know, that might help.
| Thanks, Barbara."
|
| It seems obvious to me that it is understanding the metaphors
| into underlying meanings to be able to translate them like
| this. I think half the pushback is just ego driven nonsense,
| similar to the sorts of people that make similar claims on
| the capabilities of animals.
|
| It's all just an argument that "boats can't swim".
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I like the boats can't swim summary of this disagreement. I
| think these two groups have been talking past each other,
| and this is the crux of the disagreement. Some people seem
| to expect AI to converge to being more like a human as it
| gets better and are stuck on how inhuman it is. They are
| not considering the endless possible types of non human
| intelligence. These differences should not be mistaken as
| inferiority, in many cases they will offer huge advantages.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I think this is a good example of deep conceptual
| understanding, I suspect if you posed this same problem to
| adult humans (e.g. me) they wouldn't be able to do as well.
| WA wrote:
| I can't understand how you come to this conclusion so
| easily. It makes no sense. Computers are better at some
| things. My calculator can do 12345 x 54321 in a
| heartbeat, I can't. What does this prove at all?
| chillfox wrote:
| That calculators will take most of the math jobs and
| companies wont have math departments anymore...
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| That specific example proves conceptual understanding of
| the subject matter.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| An actual intelligence would have a mental model of the
| world deeper than the connection between one token and
| the next and a model of the human beings he was
| interacting with and an expectation of effecting that
| model to achieve actual differences in the observed
| world. In other words Google translate doesn't actually
| speak Chinese.
| rlt wrote:
| > An actual intelligence would have a mental model of the
| world deeper than the connection between one token and
| the next
|
| Why are you so confident in this? We don't really know
| how human "intelligence" works. Whose to say it's not
| doing something similar?
|
| It's a bit like saying an audio file doesn't contain
| "music" because it's just a binary representation of the
| original work.
| aezart wrote:
| If I ask a human what their favorite flavor of ice cream
| is, they will answer based on their actual preference for
| different kinds of ice cream.
|
| If I ask a chat LLM what its favorite flavor of ice cream
| is, it will select a statistically likely answer to the
| question.
|
| That's the difference.
|
| For reference: my favorite ice cream flavor is cake
| batter, but only if it's the one at Cold Stone. If it's
| from somewhere else, I go with cookie dough.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| It seems to me that most of these arguments boil down to
| "it didn't think or respond like I would expect a human
| to, therefore it isn't intelligent." This isn't open
| minded to the diverse possibilities of non human
| intelligence, nor is it demonstrating a lack of
| understanding or real limitation. It doesn't seem to have
| any sense of self beyond playing characters it was asked
| to play, yet those characters are able to intelligently
| select actions towards goals they were assigned by a
| prompt using creativity, complex reasoning, and deep
| understanding. This is a difference that isn't an
| inferiority or shortcoming.
|
| I would even argue that humans are more similar to that
| than we think. The main difference is that one of the
| characters is locked to the surface most of the time (not
| even very perfectly).
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > We don't really know how human "intelligence" works
|
| Or cepholapod intelligence. Or magpie/raven/crow
| intelligence.
| espadrine wrote:
| > _I 'd like the "stochastic parrot" crew to explain how
| interactions like this somehow don't involve the extraction
| of and manipulation of abstract meaning._
|
| They don't claim that it doesn't. What they point out is
| that humans have a tendency to ascribe intent and agency to
| the text it outputs. But the LLM is optimized for
| prediction, not survival, unlike humans[0]:
|
| > _Text generated by an LM is not grounded in communicative
| intent. [...] Our perception of natural language [is
| mediated by] our predisposition to interpret communicative
| acts as conveying coherent meaning and intent_
|
| Some of the dangers they raise associated with this is that
| it will not realize that words it chooses are PII,
| dangerous to give to who they are talking to, or biased in
| a way that can cause societal harm:
|
| > _If the LM or word embeddings derived from it are used as
| components in a text classification system, these biases
| can lead to allocational and /or reputational harms. [...]
| A Palestinian man [was] arrested by Israeli police, after
| MT translated his Facebook post which said "good morning"
| (in Arabic) to "hurt them" (in English)._
|
| What they encourage is to view it as a tool and assess how
| it may fail. For instance, you might object that the MT was
| simply incorrect; but realistically, sentences can be
| translated in many ways and with many intents (eg. Allah
| Akbar has a lot of contexts!) and the LLM may not be given
| the full picture of the situation.
|
| The stochastic parrots paper is heavily misrepresented or
| used by people that don't seem like they read it. For
| instance, it was cited in a recent petition asking to stop
| work on powerful AI, prompting a response from the
| authors[1] pointing out that it misunderstands the paper
| and emphasizing that they disagree with the petition.
|
| [0]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922
|
| [1]: https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-
| March20...
| knome wrote:
| >The stochastic parrots paper is heavily misrepresented
|
| I listened to a lengthy video on the "stochastic parrot"
| from the Alan Turing Institute yesterday after having
| made that comment, and it was mostly on the topics you
| mentioned, subtle and overt bias, etc. I kept waiting on
| them to explain the "it's not real" bit that I've seen
| implied by the phrase where I've seen it used ( or
| perhaps, simply read into it myself ), but it never
| really came in. At the very end, one commentator made a
| comment implying it's not really all there and the next
| responding didn't disagree outright, but you could see a
| kind of "well yes, but actually no" kind of expression go
| across their face as they talked around it.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I believe you will quickly run into a barrier due to the
| small size of the context window. And increasing the context
| window gets harder and harder the larger it is.
|
| There's a sibling talking about internal memory. That's how
| our brains solve the issue. AFAIK, nobody knows how to train
| something like it.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Approaches like RETRO tack vector search over a fixed
| database onto an attention based model - that's how you get
| long term memory. People are already working on it for the
| current crop of LLMs.
| nomel wrote:
| I think an attention/focus system might be applicable. I
| think humans have the same limitations, with tricks to work
| around it. As Jim Keller once said on an Lex Fridman
| interview, a good engineer is one that can jump around
| between the different levels of abstraction. We think in a
| high level, then "focus" and jump down when needed.
|
| I think something like this could be hacked together, with
| summarization and parallel "focus threads", containing
| prompts that focus on details. These could be pruned/merged
| back together, to add to the "summary" higher level
| abstractions.
|
| I use this approach already, to some extent, when a
| conversation gets too long and I need specific details.
| I'll start a new prompt, include a high level summary, and
| then "focus" on specific ideas to get more specific answers
| about a particular detail.
| wyager wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if AI research moves towards
| training models to use bolt-on peripherals like scratchpad
| memory. Transformers showed us an interface for addressing,
| so I wouldn't be surprised if someone figures out a way to
| use a similar addressing scheme and made it read/write.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| You are right, but it is unclear to me where this
| limitation will fall in terms of actual abilities.
|
| GPT-4 can divide large tasks up into logical steps and
| instructions that can be worked on independently by other
| instances, and it can create "compressed" condensed
| explanations of it's own state that can be stored
| externally and repeated back to it, or passed back and
| forth between instances. With the unreleased 32,000 token
| context window, that is really a lot of context when you
| consider that it can heavily compress things by referencing
| what it was trained on.
| IanCal wrote:
| > With the unreleased 32,000 token context window, that
| is really a lot of context when you consider that it can
| heavily compress things by referencing what it was
| trained on.
|
| Also that means you can just iterate with different
| contexts until you can deal with the problem. How many
| problems need 50 pages of context on top of what gpt4
| knows for solving the next step?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| >How many problems need 50 pages of context on top of
| what gpt4 knows for solving the next step?
|
| Perhaps the unknown unkowns?
|
| I envision a scenario where a super intelligent AI
| seemingly runs off the rails and becomes obsessed with
| overtly complex problems that are totally intractable to
| humans. Where we'd be like ants trying to make sense of
| cell phones.
| jules wrote:
| Maybe it can do this with sleep, where it gets further
| training on the new input and output it produced that
| day.
| Sinidir wrote:
| That just gave me the idea that there could be a main
| instance that keeps a summary of the problem (List of
| paragraphs for each subproblem) and other instances that
| hold the larger text that these summaries are based on.
| Then on demand the main instance could get needed extra
| information for a subpoint back. Kinda like having
| forgein keys in a databas with which you can join in the
| relevant row!
| brotchie wrote:
| Yep, the tipping point for me was seeing a demo of GPT-4
| writing code, then being shown exceptions where the code
| failed, and successfully fixing the code given that feedback.
|
| Seems that for any task where you can generate an error
| signal with some information ("ok, what you just tried to do
| didn't succeed, here's some information about why it didn't
| succeed"), GPT-4 can generally handle this information to fix
| the error, and or seek out more information via tools to move
| forward on a task.
|
| Only thing that's really missing is somebody to crack the
| back of a memory module (perhaps some trick with embeddings
| and a vector db) is all it takes for this to be AGI.
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| > Only thing that's really missing is somebody to crack the
| back of a memory module (perhaps some trick with embeddings
| and a vector db) is all it takes for this to be AGI.
|
| Here to say I agree with embeddings and vector db for
| memory systems. However also to disagree this can lead to
| AGI.
| nomel wrote:
| > I suspect AGI is possible right now with the right "glue"
| for existing models, and plugins to existing data sources all
| coordinated in a system.
|
| I think the regulation of the feedback loops required for
| sustained, deliberate thought, and interaction with the
| world, will be the most difficult piece of the AGI puzzle,
| and might not exist today.
|
| New ideas _are_ "hallucinations" of our "existing data", that
| we eventually get around to proving. An AGI will require
| these "hallucinations", inhibition and excitation of them. I
| think it's going to be a tricky balance [1], for sane output.
|
| 1. "Creative minds 'mimic schizophrenia",
| https://www.bbc.com/news/10154775
| lukeschlather wrote:
| I agree in general, though I think you're being too
| optimistic about GPT4 finding and fixing its mistakes. I
| haven't been using it much, but the only thing where it
| performed flawlessly was translating a simple song into
| Spanish. At the same time, GPT is a total sycophant and this
| makes it rather hard to work with. Whenever I give it
| feedback it agrees with whatever I have said and then
| proceeds to produce paragraphs of text which include several
| contradictions of the things we've "agreed" on.
|
| I think the "stochastic parrot" idea is too harsh, but it
| does reflect that GPT is fundamentally incapable of looking
| at a small block of text, turning it into a set of logical
| facts, and recognizing if those facts are consistent or not.
| I think it is something that is possible to build with a
| refinement of GPT, but I'm not sure it can be done simply
| with glue code.
| jmfldn wrote:
| It all depends on your definition of AGI as this term seems to
| be used with wildly different meanings. Before I can agree on
| any statement about AGI, I need to know what it is I'm being
| asked to agree / disagree on.
|
| Fwiw though, using this kind of mashup approach of gluing lots
| of things together, I suspect you'll get something that appears
| to match at least some people's definition of AGI.
| lachlan_gray wrote:
| It would be really interesting to see how a system like this
| competes with multimodal transformers. If it's good, systems like
| GPT-4 and Kosmos-1 won't need to have a built-in vision system.
| roddylindsay wrote:
| What could go wrong?
| [deleted]
| zoba wrote:
| These sort of agent-architecture AIs are where I think things
| will head and also where things will get more dangerous.
|
| When an AI has a goal and an ability to break the goal down, and
| make progress towards the goal... the only thing stopping the AI
| from misalignment is whatever it's creator has specified as the
| goal.
|
| Things get even more tricky when the agent can take in new
| information and deprioritize goals.
|
| I have been curious why OpenAI haven't discussed Agent-based AIs.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| > the only thing stopping the AI from misalignment is whatever
| it's creator has specified as the goal.
|
| And the API providers willingness/capability to provide the
| service being requested.
|
| I'm with those who don't see the danger, besides humans' own
| stupidity being amplified and someone trusting "AI" with
| something life critical, what should I be watching out for?
| amelius wrote:
| Can we please stop generating bounding boxes and instead generate
| a proper segmentation using bitmasks?
| cameronfraser wrote:
| it depends on the problem?
| amelius wrote:
| True, but a bitmask is always better than a rectangle. And
| the computational resources required for this problem are not
| very large compared to other AI workloads, so it should be a
| no-brainer from a usefulness viewpoint.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I always wondered what it was like for people that lived through
| the discovery of relativity. It must have just been world
| changing to understand what it meant and how entire perspectives
| and theories were dead overnight. Just a massive change in the
| understanding of our existence and the potential it unlocked.
|
| These types of things must feel similar.
| imjonse wrote:
| that was much more gradual and did not affect everyday life at
| all. Even today most people don't know/care about the
| implications of relativity :)
| Vespasian wrote:
| I don't think relativity had the same hype associated with it.
|
| I'm finding it very difficult to differentiate between
| (sometimes involuntary) sales people and genuine usefulness (of
| which there is plenty to be clear).
|
| It is yet unclear where the conceptual and fundamental
| limitations of the current approach lie and I'm immediately
| suspicious about anyone telling me there aren't any in
| particular when this sentiment is based on a few hours of GPT-4
| usage.
|
| We need more hard science on this. Great claims require great
| proofs and "AGI is imminent" is a very very very great claim.
|
| We know that these tool are pretty useful as they are right now
| and will have massive influence on society.
| amelius wrote:
| Where can I find a good, constantly-up-to-date overview of what
| is possible with AI?
| abrichr wrote:
| https://library.phygital.plus/
| meghan_rain wrote:
| You're already here :-)
| amelius wrote:
| Are you sure? There's a lot of overhyping here, and of course
| the reaction to that. Too much noise for me, tbh. Just give
| me the scientifically established facts.
| [deleted]
| roflyear wrote:
| I agree with you
| roflyear wrote:
| This is an awfully biased and inaccurate source of what these
| models can do and what they will probably be able to do. HN
| is not full of experts here. It's fanboys.
| maCDzP wrote:
| Am I the only one with an uneasy feeling about all these
| advancements?
|
| Are we going fast or is it just because of the buzz? I have a
| hard time separating the two.
|
| It's very exiting and I want to keep being exited. I don't want
| to become terrified.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Everyone can see the writing on the wall that they need to be a
| part owner of the production, because the worker will not be
| needed. So its a land grab in every direction right now for the
| thing that is going to co-opt the means of production.
| blibble wrote:
| what do the owners of production do when the 6 billion
| workers decide they don't like not being able to eat?
| fnimick wrote:
| Owning production buys you a lot of weapons with which you
| can enforce your property ownership on others.
|
| Not if, but when, we get around to AI law enforcement with
| lethal weapons, it's over. There's no going back from that.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Give them a bit of food and a lot of entertainment...
| tanseydavid wrote:
| _" Let them eat cake!"_
| foobarbizbuz wrote:
| What would they care? 6 billion people is probably too many
| for the planet anyway.
|
| Also they dont need to raise and feed an army if AI powered
| drones are able to do the same job. When AI is able to
| replace jobs en masse its pretty transparent to expect AI
| armies to be built en masse as well.
| quonn wrote:
| I wonder if the physical workers join especially for
| services. Perhaps not, since they may be needed.
| blibble wrote:
| so bring it down to 3 billion people who know how to find
| datacentres on google maps
| quonn wrote:
| Good point.
| [deleted]
| yieldcrv wrote:
| the point is to survive a little longer so you don't wind
| up being the 2 billion that starved to death waiting for an
| AI-output tax to form universal basic income or the
| uprising to start.
|
| bake cookies just like the nice old grandma does for the
| local teenage gangs. its a survival mechanism so that
| nobody messes with you.
| roflyear wrote:
| > because the worker will not be needed.
|
| I'm pretty sure this is not obvious.
| JieJie wrote:
| "I think it'd be crazy not to be a little bit afraid, and I
| empathize with people who are a lot afraid." --Sam Altman, CEO
| of OpenAI
| JL-Akrasia wrote:
| An AI API marketplace is going to be amazing. But each API is
| going to need parameters that you can run gradient descent on
| to tune.
|
| This needs to be the foundation
| akhosravian wrote:
| Someone born in 1885 who lived to be 70 was brought into a
| world where it took weeks to get from the US to Europe, and
| died in a world where it took hours. TNT was the hottest in
| explosives at their birth, and we'd seen the spread of city
| ending explosives by their death. I personally feel nuclear
| proliferation is still orders of magnitude more frightening
| than anything AI has done.
|
| Someone born in 1985 who is now 37-38 was brought into a world
| where the internet barely existed, and was barely an adult when
| the iPhone launched. There's still a lot more that can happen.
|
| Don't listen to pessimists: the world will look very different,
| but we apes have a way of adapting.
| roflyear wrote:
| What things can this tech do which scare you?
| maCDzP wrote:
| It not that this tech does things now that scare me. Now I am
| mostly exited.
|
| I believe my uneasiness stems from the unknown potential of
| this technology.
|
| Now, one could argue that that's always the case for
| technology, so why do I feel uneasy now?
|
| I believe that this particular type of technology has a very
| large potential. I think most HN readers would agree.
|
| But I am not scared, yet. I'll be scared when I know the
| technology will do serious damage, until then it's an uneasy
| feeling. Then I'll probably be terrified.
| roflyear wrote:
| I think part of it is you have a lot of idiots whoa re
| saying this is AGI. It isn't, and it isn't anywhere close
| to it.
| fnovd wrote:
| We've been "moving too fast" since we figured out agriculture.
| It's fine. The world as you know it will change irreversibly;
| you'll long for the simplicity of youth; you will bemoan the
| state of the world we have left for our children... just like
| every generation before us did. It'll all be fine. Enjoy the
| ride, it's called life, and it's better than it ever has been.
| dw_arthur wrote:
| The power to seriously harm nations may be in the hands of
| tens of thousands of individuals within a few years. Things
| might just be different this time.
| hanniabu wrote:
| That's already the case
| fnovd wrote:
| It will be different this time, just like it was every
| other time. It still doesn't matter. The epoch of earth's
| history that happens to overlap with your own lifespan
| isn't inherently more interesting or important than any
| other time, except to you. But sure, what good is an
| exciting new frontier without a gaggle of doomers worried
| about what's on the other side? Same as it ever was.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >The epoch of earth's history that happens to overlap
| with your own lifespan isn't inherently more interesting
| or important than any other time, except to you
|
| Earth's history, sure. Humanity's history though? Living
| during the Apollo program is clearly more interesting
| than living in a period of relative stasis. Living during
| the AGI revolution could be more interesting still, we'll
| have to see.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Past performance is not indicative of future results.
| acdanger wrote:
| These rah rah comments aren't illuminating or helpful. There
| are immense costs - societal and ecological - to progress
| that a lot of people seem to be blind to, whether willfully
| or not.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| One can reasonably argue that the printing press was
| responsible for the speed and violence of the reformation.
| But the alternative of an illiterate world is hardly a
| panacea. Most large-scale advancements have the same
| flavor.
|
| What are we to do, then? No snark, honest question.
| [deleted]
| Manjuuu wrote:
| We should have had a moratorium on potatoes, look at us now.
| acdanger wrote:
| Maybe a moratorium on the Haber process though.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| Being terrified doesn't serve much purpose at this point.
|
| We are going too fast. Have been for years. This is just the
| first clear indication.
|
| Braking is fatal, but some seem pretty hell-bent.
|
| Deceleration is complicated, and it seems highly unlikely that
| there would be sufficient consensus for true deceleration.
| Local deceleration is simply waiting for the acceleration
| occurring somewhere else to overcome your efforts.
|
| The math hasn't really changed for most individuals. At some
| point something big will happen.
|
| Singularity.
|
| Be excited and put your efforts towards what you value. One way
| or another, there is very little time left for wasting.
| quonn wrote:
| Have to reply a second time: It does serve a purpose. There
| is a purpose in fear and the purpose is to either get us
| moving if we are complacent or to prevent us from doing
| things that are not good for us. So the fear may be
| justified. Maybe.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| Time to do something more than respond to cortisol. Before
| something smarter than the monkey decides to guide the
| monkey effectively.
| quonn wrote:
| I disagree. ChatGPT is a clear turning point. We have not
| been going too fast before, at least not outside LLMs.
|
| Singularity is a belief system, it has very little to do with
| AI.
|
| edit: I also think if we would ever get to a point where AI
| gets close to a point of possibly getting out of control as
| you imply it would simply be banned in the
| US/Canada/EU/Australia. Furthermore Latin America and Africa
| could and would be pressured to go along if needed. Which
| leaves some parts of Asia. China, maybe India and Russia.
| Probably only China. It could be cut off from the Internet if
| needed. We could build up a wall just like in the Cold War.
| My point being: This will not happen just because it happens.
| It will be a choice.
| avereveard wrote:
| Gpt plus langchain agents is quite scary
|
| It will use every tool you give it to reach the goal you
| give him. It will try forever if needed.
|
| I bet state actor are already plugging in tooling to
| register social account and automate credible propaganda.
| Maybe not with gpt itself, but privately hosted fine tuned
| models.
|
| This can win elections.
|
| You can plug wordpress and build infinite blogs with
| infinite post with the unique scope of building mass around
| a topic.
|
| This can alter Wikipedia, many people don't ever check
| sources and take it at face value.
|
| You can not only build fake research paper, but fake the
| whole research team and their whole interactions with the
| community and investor.
|
| This can fraud millions.
|
| Tools enable this today.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| Humans have been doing all of this and more, for a very
| long time.
|
| This simply exposes all of the cracks in the foundations
| of our society. There are severely exploitable issues,
| and we may wind up with a planet-level chaos monkey.
|
| Ghostbusters had the stay-puft marshmallow man. Will the
| form of our destroyer be the woot monkey?
| baq wrote:
| Yes it was possible. Steel was also available before the
| industrial revolution... but guess what, it's called a
| revolution for reason? It become cheap enough to upend
| preexisting social status quo. It was a social phase
| transition caused by technology.
|
| We're dealing with a very nascent AI revolution right
| now. A social phase transition has already started: on
| the forefront there are graphic artists (midjourney v5 is
| literally revolutionizing the industry as we speak) and
| NLP researchers (GPT-4 has reduced the need for applied
| NLP to basically zero), but it's only a start. The
| cheapness and availability changes everything.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| Except this isn't a revolution. Think bigger.
|
| The industry was a joke prior to this. No offense.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| I wasn't limiting my comment to AI development.
|
| Humanity has been going too fast for a long time.
|
| Tell me about this singularity belief system. I simply
| meant something stronger than an inflection point, closer
| to the mathematical sense than what you must be assuming,
| but that word must mean something more for you.
| JL-Akrasia wrote:
| An AI API marketplace is going to be amazing. But each API
| is going to need parameters that you can run gradient
| descent on to tune.
|
| This needs to be the foundation
| marshray wrote:
| Kind of like how we could just ban fossil fuels if they
| ever start to become a problem.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| Or drugs!
| [deleted]
| nemo44x wrote:
| I think we are at, or very near, the inflection point in that
| picture of that graph that is rising linearly for centuries and
| then suddenly goes exponential.
|
| https://waitbutwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/G1.jpg
| 93po wrote:
| the problem is that the chart is also accurate if the x axis
| starts 100,000 years ago. the inflection point might be 2000
| years or it might be 50 years.
| ugh123 wrote:
| 'buzz' doesn't usually come with examples!
| ed wrote:
| Here's the (empty, for now) GitHub repo -
| https://github.com/microsoft/JARVIS
| levesque wrote:
| This read more like a technical demo than a scientific paper.
| Wonder why they put it on arXiv.
| tracyhenry wrote:
| Reminds me of VisualChatGPT (https://github.com/microsoft/visual-
| chatgpt), which also uses a LLM to decide what vision models to
| run.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| A lot of LLM/ AI research feels like a big "duh."
|
| The language model, being trained on essentially the primary way
| in which humanity communicates, might be a good means of managing
| integration of less language-focused models.
|
| ...duh?
| baq wrote:
| animals which use tools: great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees,
| orangutans), monkeys, otters, dolphins, some bird species,
| octopus, and a few crocodilian species.
|
| now LLMs are on this list. a thing which isn't born, doesn't
| experience, can be copied and instantiated a million times, and
| a single improvement can be basically immediately propagated to
| all instances. a very unfamiliar thing with very familiar
| capabilities.
|
| so, technically, it was obvious. socially and psychologically,
| we'll be dealing with it for the rest of our civilization's
| lifetime.
| roflyear wrote:
| If you think LLMs are an animal I'd hope you'd be cautious of
| enslaving them.
| fatherzine wrote:
| "We'll be dealing with it for the rest of our civilization's
| lifetime." Exactly.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| That's a steal!
| user- wrote:
| Its a matter of time until connecting widely different AI tools
| will be super seamless, very exciting. The examples in the paper
| are pretty cool. I predict within the next year or so will see an
| sort of A.I assistant that is hooked up to dozens of LLMs and
| similar tools, and the end user will just ask their assistant to
| do things for them. That sci fi moment is almost here.
| chasd00 wrote:
| connecting "widely different AI tools" reminds me of the good
| old pipe operator. Maybe an AI can be an "anything command" for
| a specific domain and then we just pipe them together so they
| can each weigh in with their own expertise. ...like an AI team
| or committee more or less.
| karmasimida wrote:
| It is possible to actually revolution the glue layer of
| computation in a lot of organizations.
|
| GhatGPT is the ultimate and last glue layer we will ever need.
| simon_000666 wrote:
| ChatGTP/4 is to AGI what pepper's ghost is to holography.
|
| It's a parlor trick, even if you add plugins or the ability to
| call other hugging face ML models - it's just a parlor trick with
| fancier bells and whistles. All it is doing is using stochastic
| gradient descent to predict the next word in a sequence based on
| an enormous sophisticated training set designed to amaze people.
|
| Thinking it has advanced because it can now get calculations
| correct is a fallacy. It's still just predicting the next word,
| it's just that it's now got a post processing step that is
| converting those next words into code and parroting the output.
| It maybe be able to now answer 4567*9876 correctly (using the
| human hardcoded wolfram alpha engine) but it still does not
| fundamentally comprehend why 1+1=2 - like my 5 year old can.
|
| Until it can generate its own internal neural networks to for
| example learn to logically reason about calculations we are still
| far from AGI. Also those calling for more data are misguided -
| less data, more sophisticated architectures than transformers are
| the only way to avoid the stochastic parrot trap.
| anonkogudhyfhhf wrote:
| Evolution is just gene selection through natural selection. To
| create an eye is not possible
|
| Well neural networks have unpredicted emergent properties. I
| don't see how anyone can rule out or know future behaviour
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| > less data, more sophisticated architectures
|
| "The bitter lesson" would like to have a word.
| http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
|
| I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the history of ML shows that
| your approach is less likely to work. Maybe you'll be the one
| to prove everyone else wrong. Architectural breakthroughs are
| few and far between, and it's incredibly difficult to reason
| about. I came up with the Lion optimizer while Google was using
| random tree search across 300 TPUs to discover the same thing,
| and it's just five lines or so.
| bjackman wrote:
| I find this so bizarre. Every time someone demonstrates a new
| way in which models are capable of a wider array of tasks than
| expected someone goes "it's just predicting tokens".
|
| It's such a big "just". You are just firing neurons. The stock
| market is just supply and demand. The internet is just a bunch
| of computers talking through 50 year old protocols that don't
| work very well.
|
| Everything is just something else! I wonder if the first tribe
| to be annihilated by bronze weapons were like "that stuff is
| just like stone but more malleable, don't see what the big deal
| is".
| simon_000666 wrote:
| Pepper's ghost is also impressive when you see it for the
| first time. They've enhanced it do entire concerts now with
| dead music stars on stage for huge audiences. Has it helped
| us get any closer solve holography, will I be able to have a
| Star Trek style hologram roaming round my house because of
| pepper's ghost?
| roflyear wrote:
| It's not a big just. Saying it is AGI is an insanely huge
| claim. Don't flip it around and saying the skeptic is the one
| making a large claim. They aren't!
| stavros wrote:
| Stavros' law of AGI: If we know how it works, it's not true
| AGI.
| r_singh wrote:
| I asked chatGPT why it kept apologising and told it to not
| apologise to me.
|
| Guess what, it apolgised immediately after and then again
| when I asked why it apologised even after I told it not to.
| bjackman wrote:
| Guess what, I just saw one of those idiots from the
| bronzeworking tribe with a BENT sword. Imagine using
| weapons with blades that can get bent.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| That's pretty common in Japan, from what I've heard.
| Cultural upbringing is hard to distance yourself from.
| roflyear wrote:
| Is chapgpt Japanese?
| mmiliauskas wrote:
| Except "this is just" is sprinkled all over NNs, DL and in
| turn of ChatGPT. Actually they pride themselves on "this is
| just".
|
| So your argument is probably more accurate for the other
| camp, or at least as accurate for the other camp as well.
| bjackman wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're getting at here but I'll try to
| respond. My argument is that "this is just" is meaningless
| as a way to assess the impact of a technology.
|
| If AI researches say, "this is just X and it can do Y!"
| then fine, that's just framing for "look: Y". When
| stochastic parrot guys say "this is just X, what's
| impressive about that?" it throws me for a loop coz they
| are are refusing to engage with Y.
| simon_000666 wrote:
| I think we disagree about what Y is. My point is that Y
| is not that different from materially what is possible
| with a slack bot from circa 2015. Essentially chatgtp is
| a less efficient way to get to the same outcomes that
| were already possible. The trick is that it appears to be
| something it's not - AGI.
|
| I like your bronze sword analogy. From my point of view
| chatgtp is not a bronze sword, it's a Stone Age sword
| that someone has painted bronze. It has value because
| people realize the advantage that a true bronze sword
| would have in a battle. However, when you actually put it
| through it's paces you quickly realise it offers no
| actual value over what came before.
| Escapado wrote:
| And while it may be true that it is far from AGI, I don't think
| calling it a parlor trick does it justice. I used it this
| morning to set up a new workout routine for myself after having
| it write a little boilerplate typescript code to bootstrap 70%
| of a micro service I want to set up. My girlfriend who is
| studying react got a lot of value out of it by having compile
| errors explained to her. My mum uses it to practice English. I
| am going to integrate GPT-4 into a new product where it
| provides tangible value for non technical users. To be useful
| it does not need to be sentient or able to iterate on its own
| architecture.
| simon_000666 wrote:
| Yeah I agree that's fair, a parlor trick is perhaps a little
| harsh. ChatGTP can provide value - It's arguable whether
| having done that 'with classical' methods could have been
| more efficient or whether the end result is as good - (btw
| careful with code - in my experience ChatGTP often thinks it
| knows what is wrong but is way off - something an experienced
| coder would notice immediately). Do you remember the
| tamagotchi? That also provided value to millions of people,
| many people thought of it as sentient even - was it? No - was
| it anywhere near AGI? No. If we can find good uses for the
| GTP models that were not possible or cost prohibitive before
| - then great. I think we just need to be clear - like the
| Tamagotchi - this is far from AGI and plugins/hugging face is
| not penultimate step before skynet.
| thomasskis wrote:
| Weird behaviour I've noticed is a lot of folks on the
| unimpressed/doomism side of AI consistently say GTP instead
| of GPT, I wonder why this pattern exists?
| chatmasta wrote:
| Setting aside whether you're right or wrong about this...
| assuming you are right, then are you worried this will set
| everyone down the wrong path? That we'll spend ten years
| iterating on transformer models, never getting any closer to
| AGI? Is there another direction you think we should be moving
| toward instead (or at least simultaneously)?
| namelos wrote:
| > It's still just predicting the next word.
|
| Computer-generated random numbers are not truly random, yet
| they are practically random in most real-world use cases. You
| can't easily cheat the RNG in World of Warcraft to get critical
| strike every time.
|
| The output from GPT is generally very intelligent and versatile
| in terms of text. It may even be capable of handling more
| multi-modal problems with the use of enough sensors and motors.
| Perhaps the same idea of "predicting the next move" or
| "predicting the next idea" can still apply.
|
| Who knows, maybe humans are essentially physical creatures that
| "generate the next thought and generate the next move"?
|
| One of the biggest issues with GPT is its lack of mid-term
| memory like human do. Instead, we need vector store and search
| then bolt back its short term memory instead of letting it
| handle everything in a more coherent way. Perhaps it could
| benefit from lightweight fine-tuning technologies like LoRA and
| hypernetworks for stable diffusion. If this issue is resolved
| we would see it'll get even more practical. Again, the flaw is
| not about "predicting the next words".
| SanderNL wrote:
| Your 5yo does not understand 1+1. You yourself do not
| understand it. Entire careers were spent trying to pin it down.
| It is basically its own branch of mathematics.
|
| I understand your point, but I am struggling to see why it
| matters. This seems more and more an argument like "cars are
| not horses". I know they are not but does it matter? Cars are
| superior for our use cases.
| trifurcate wrote:
| Is this some kind of copypasta? Too many tropes all at once.
| "GTP" on top of all this is too on the nose.
| thomasskis wrote:
| Ha I just commented above at the pattern of people in this
| camp using "GTP" fairly consistently.
|
| What a curious psychological study, maybe dyslexic people
| feel more threatened by a large language model so clearly
| understanding words that they're more likely to attempt to
| discredit it?
| ShamelessC wrote:
| If it wasn't, it is now.
| barking_biscuit wrote:
| I don't think whether it's AGI or not actually matters when it
| starts materially affecting the economy.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| +10 Very well-said (and to-the-point).
| [deleted]
| qolop wrote:
| >> It's still just predicting the next word
|
| Predicting the next word is a much deeper problem than people
| like you realise. To be able to be good at predicting the next
| word you need to have an internal model of the reality that
| produced that next word.
|
| GPT-4 might be trained at predicting the next word, but in that
| process it learns a very deep representation of our world. That
| explains how it has an intuition for colours despite never
| having seen colours. It explains why it knows how physical
| objects in the real world interact.
|
| Now, if you disagree with this hypothesis it's very easy to
| disprove it by presenting a problem to GPT4 that is very easy
| for humans to solve but not for GPT4. Like the Yann Lecun gear
| problem, which GPT4 is also able to solve.
| simon_000666 wrote:
| "To be able to be good at predicting the next word you need
| to have an internal model of the reality that produced that
| next word."
|
| Now that's an interesting claim - that I would deeply
| dispute. It learns from text. Text itself is a model of
| reality. So chatgtp if anything proves that in order to be
| good at predicting the next word all you need is a good model
| of a model of reality. GTP knows nothing of actual reality
| only the statistics around symbol patterns that occur in
| text.
| adhocmobility wrote:
| You are being given a chance to dispute it. Give an example
| of a problem that any human would be easily able to solve
| but GPT4 wouldn't.
|
| >> "good model of a model of reality"
|
| That is just a model of reality. Also, a "model of reality"
| is what you'd typically call a world model. Its an
| intuition for how the world works, how people behave, that
| apples fall from trees and that orange is more similar to
| red than it is to grey.
|
| Your last line shows that you still have a superficial
| understanding of what its learning. Yes it is statistics,
| but even our understanding of the world is statistical. The
| equations we have in our head of how the world works are
| not exact, they're probabilistic. Humans know that "Apples
| fall from the _____" should be filled with 'tree' with a
| high probability because that's where apples grow. Yes, we
| have seen them grow there, whereas the AI model has only
| read about the growing on trees. But that distinction is
| moot because both the AI model and humans express their
| understanding in the same way. The assertion we're making
| is that to be able to predict the next word well, you need
| an internal world model. And GPT4 has learnt that world
| model well, despite not having sensory inputs.
| simon_000666 wrote:
| Can chatgtp ride a bicycle? Can you ride a bicycle? If
| you 'd never rode on a bicycle before - do you think if
| you read enough books on bicycle riding, the physics of
| bicycle riding, the physics of the universe - you would
| have anywhere near as complete a model of bicycle riding
| as someone who'd actually rode on a bicycle before. Sure
| you'd be able to talk a great game about riding bicycles
| - but when it comes to the crunch, you'd fall flat on
| your face. That's because riding a bicycle involves a
| large number of incredibly complex emergent control
| phenomena embedded within the marvel of engineering that
| is the human body - not just the small part of the brain
| that handles language. So call me when LLM's can convert
| their 'world models' learned from statistics on human
| language use into being able to ride a bicycle first
| time. Until then I feel comfortable in the knowledge they
| know virtually nothing of our objective reality.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| Could Stephen Hawking ride a bicycle?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-01 23:03 UTC)