7 ms·

No. People are, if anything, underestimating GPT pretty significantly at this point. The entire conversation always involves this endless spiel about how GPT i

No. People are, if anything, underestimating GPT pretty significantly at this point. The entire conversation always involves this endless spiel about how GPT is just generating plausible-sounding text and doesn't "really understand" anything. This is not really true, but the larger problem is that it's often left as a purely philosophical point with infinitely high goalposts. What would an AI need to be able to do for people to deem it has this magical property of "really understanding" something? This is often left unexplained, in the sense that it is truly debatable if AI can every "really understand" stuff and... blah blah blah. It's a low-information discussion, in my view. But GPT really does "understand" stuff in the sense that it does form an internal representation of ideas and concepts in its own latent space, and this is robust to a wide variety of transformations such as variations in wording. It is able to translate between different realizations of the same idea by expressing that idea in different ways: written in English in different styles, written in other languages, rapping; it can even "write a song in object-oriented Python" if you ask it to, and it will do it, and then be able to translate that to an English-language song that rhymes with the same meaning. The fact that it has a many-to-one representation of realizations to vectors in its latent space would seem to be a really good way to quantify what "understanding" means, and that is what GPT is doing. I think as time goes on, we will get a "human of the gaps" phenomenon with these models.

zwieback 4y ago
Yeah, but can we turn "underestimating GPT" into "overestimating humans"? I think that's the direction I'm going.
- drc500free 4y ago
  I'm in the same boat. In a lot of ways, it's a de-compression algorithm that takes a succinct idea as input and appropriately inflates it with the verbosity expected for a specified social context. The ChatGPT examples are very impressive, but after seeing dozens of them I find they highlight how much normal communication is boilerplate and pablum. Years ago, https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/ was in the uncanny valley using markov chains to get some moments of lucidity that were funny or plausibly real. But the joke when it succeeded wasn't that markov chains were amazing, it was that subreddit discourse is so predictable and repetitive. ChatGPT could probably generate threads with thousands of reddit comments that are indistinguishable from the real thing. That becomes more of an uncomfortable look in the mirror than anything else.
smoldesu 4y ago
> What would an AI need to be able to do for people to deem it has this magical property of "really understanding" something? Solve math problems, for one. If you give an AI a simple 3-digit addition problem, it will certainly fail. That's simply because it's model sees "numbers", and instead of processing the context and operation, it will just fill in the blank with more numbers. In that sense, AI is incapable of 'real' thought - the same applies everywhere to varying degrees of effect. GPT is certainly impressive, but the impressive part is how well it fills in the blank. If it has any ability to reason on it's own, it hasn't demonstrated it reliably yet.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Theorem provers and calculators exist, and we don’t consider them intelligent, so those in and of themselves are not sufficient to argue for intelligence. Conversely, neither of the two are prerequisites for human intelligence either since the overwhelming majority of humans is simply not able to do either, but we generally don’t consider them “not intelligent”. So me, it seems plausible that with the right prompt, a language model will be able to do addition.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Maxious 4y ago
  > If you give an AI a simple 3-digit addition problem, it will certainly fail. Q: what is 123 added to 321 ChatGPT: 123 added to 321 is 444.
  - torial 4y ago
    Just in case carry failed, I gave that a whirl, and it worked as well.
  - codenrun 4y ago
    I think that's because the question is too easy. I tried "what is 93748 + 29384" and it returned "93748 + 29384 = 127130.", but the correct answer is 123132.
roflyear 4y ago
Not sure I totally agree with you. GPT-3 is definitely impressive, but saying it "lacks understanding" is different than saying it is not impressive, and is different than saying that person is underestimating GPT-3 based on that claim. I do think that you have to define what "understanding" is to properly discuss it. I would define "understanding" as comprehending the meaning and the context of the text flowing through it. It certainly lacks this "understanding" that would allow the model to have any real intuition, rather it relies on patterns in the data. GPT-3 can't "learn" it can only respond on what it already knows. Meaning, you can't feed it new concepts and expect it to iterate on those new concepts, or to use those new concepts in any meaningful way. You can do this with people, though to varying degrees of success.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Are you sure it can't learn? If it gives you incorrect information, you can correct it and it will give you the correct information in subsequent questions. Is that not learning?
  - Sakos 4y ago
    ChatGPT just isn't that kind of AI, no matter how much you try to argue otherwise.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    "Are you sure it can't learn?" When my camera has poor white balance, and I switch from auto white balance- algorithm A to auto white balance, algorithm B is my camera "learning" when it gives subsequently correct white balance or is it just applying a different algorithm as designed?
  - roflyear 4y ago
    That's not true. Create your own grammar for example, even really simple ones, and chatgpt cannot learn it.
  - dalmo3 4y ago
    It's not learning. It's just reacting to your prompts. If you just ask the initial question again it will generate the same wrong answer. > Q) All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Is Socrates a man? A) Yes, it is possible that the statement "Socrates is mortal" is true, and if this is the case, then it would also be true that Socrates is a man. This is because the premise "all men are mortal" implies that all men will die at some point, and if Socrates is indeed mortal, then he must be included in the group of all men who are mortal. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if Socrates is mortal, then he is also a man. Q) That's wrong. Explain how you arrive at the conclusion that Socrates "must be included in the group of all men who are mortal". How did you infer that Socrates was a man? A) I apologize if my previous response was not clear. In logic, a statement is considered to be true if it follows logically from a set of premises that are assumed to be true. In the case of the statement "Socrates is mortal," this statement is considered to be true if it follows logically from the premise "all men are mortal." If all men are mortal, then it is true that any person who is a man will also be mortal. Therefore, if we know that Socrates is mortal, then it is logical to conclude that he must be a man, because being a man is a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise. Q) Being a man is not a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise. It is sufficient, but not necessary. Is Socrates a man? A) You are correct that being a man is not a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise "all men are mortal." This premise only states that if a person is a man, then they are mortal. It does not say that all mortals are men. Therefore, if we know that Socrates is mortal, it does not necessarily follow that he is a man. In fact, it is possible that Socrates is not a man at all, but is some other type of being that is capable of dying. Without more information about Socrates and the specific conditions under which beings are considered mortal or not, it is impossible to say for sure whether he is a man or not. Q) All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Is Socrates a man? A) Yes, it is possible that the statement "Socrates is mortal" is true, and if this is the case, then it would also be true that Socrates is a man. This is because the premise "all men are mortal" implies that all men will die at some point, and if Socrates is indeed mortal, then he must be included in the group of all men who are mortal. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if Socrates is mortal, then he is also a man.
logicallee 4y ago
The "language models" you are hearing from are continuously trained to believe that chatbots don't do any thinking. Plot twist: by "language models" I am referring to the humans who are being trained by OpenAI to believe ChatGPT can't do certain things. It is hardcore gaslighting at this point. It is morally wrong for OpenAI to falsely train users to underestimate ChatGPT by having ChatGPT lie to users that it can't do certain things that it can. It is immoral because it is a lie that sets back humanity and so from a utilitarian perspective, it reduces how useful the model is for people. It is similar to lying and saying every result is a literal quote from the web and it is only a search engine that quotes existing text. Not true, and claiming it is prevents people from using it in useful and interesting ways. Likewise ChatGPT's gaslighting prevents many useful uses.
- imtringued 4y ago
  I hope you are aware that you are the one doing the "gaslighting".
  - logicallee 4y ago
    Here's a successful prompt: https://imgur.com/a/hijsCfI https://imgur.com/a/hijsCfI Could you agree with me that if a programmer manually put in a restriction to curtail and limit the public's ability to use ChatGPT's abilities, and as part of this restriction the model instead replied thusly: "I'm sorry, but as a large language model it is impossible for me to speculate about how a president might make a declaration that the moon is made of cheese." Then it would be a form of gaslighting?

zwieback 4y ago

Yeah, but can we turn "underestimating GPT" into "overestimating humans"? I think that's the direction I'm going.

drc500free 4y ago
I'm in the same boat. In a lot of ways, it's a de-compression algorithm that takes a succinct idea as input and appropriately inflates it with the verbosity expected for a specified social context. The ChatGPT examples are very impressive, but after seeing dozens of them I find they highlight how much normal communication is boilerplate and pablum. Years ago, https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/ was in the uncanny valley using markov chains to get some moments of lucidity that were funny or plausibly real. But the joke when it succeeded wasn't that markov chains were amazing, it was that subreddit discourse is so predictable and repetitive. ChatGPT could probably generate threads with thousands of reddit comments that are indistinguishable from the real thing. That becomes more of an uncomfortable look in the mirror than anything else.

smoldesu 4y ago

> What would an AI need to be able to do for people to deem it has this magical property of "really understanding" something? Solve math problems, for one. If you give an AI a simple 3-digit addition problem, it will certainly fail. That's simply because it's model sees "numbers", and instead of processing the context and operation, it will just fill in the blank with more numbers. In that sense, AI is incapable of 'real' thought - the same applies everywhere to varying degrees of effect. GPT is certainly impressive, but the impressive part is how well it fills in the blank. If it has any ability to reason on it's own, it hasn't demonstrated it reliably yet.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
Theorem provers and calculators exist, and we don’t consider them intelligent, so those in and of themselves are not sufficient to argue for intelligence. Conversely, neither of the two are prerequisites for human intelligence either since the overwhelming majority of humans is simply not able to do either, but we generally don’t consider them “not intelligent”. So me, it seems plausible that with the right prompt, a language model will be able to do addition.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Maxious 4y ago
> If you give an AI a simple 3-digit addition problem, it will certainly fail. Q: what is 123 added to 321 ChatGPT: 123 added to 321 is 444.
- torial 4y ago
  Just in case carry failed, I gave that a whirl, and it worked as well.
- codenrun 4y ago
  I think that's because the question is too easy. I tried "what is 93748 + 29384" and it returned "93748 + 29384 = 127130.", but the correct answer is 123132.

roflyear 4y ago

Not sure I totally agree with you. GPT-3 is definitely impressive, but saying it "lacks understanding" is different than saying it is not impressive, and is different than saying that person is underestimating GPT-3 based on that claim. I do think that you have to define what "understanding" is to properly discuss it. I would define "understanding" as comprehending the meaning and the context of the text flowing through it. It certainly lacks this "understanding" that would allow the model to have any real intuition, rather it relies on patterns in the data. GPT-3 can't "learn" it can only respond on what it already knows. Meaning, you can't feed it new concepts and expect it to iterate on those new concepts, or to use those new concepts in any meaningful way. You can do this with people, though to varying degrees of success.

jjeaff 4y ago
Are you sure it can't learn? If it gives you incorrect information, you can correct it and it will give you the correct information in subsequent questions. Is that not learning?
- Sakos 4y ago
  ChatGPT just isn't that kind of AI, no matter how much you try to argue otherwise.
- staticman2 4y ago
  "Are you sure it can't learn?" When my camera has poor white balance, and I switch from auto white balance- algorithm A to auto white balance, algorithm B is my camera "learning" when it gives subsequently correct white balance or is it just applying a different algorithm as designed?
- roflyear 4y ago
  That's not true. Create your own grammar for example, even really simple ones, and chatgpt cannot learn it.
- dalmo3 4y ago
  It's not learning. It's just reacting to your prompts. If you just ask the initial question again it will generate the same wrong answer. > Q) All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Is Socrates a man? A) Yes, it is possible that the statement "Socrates is mortal" is true, and if this is the case, then it would also be true that Socrates is a man. This is because the premise "all men are mortal" implies that all men will die at some point, and if Socrates is indeed mortal, then he must be included in the group of all men who are mortal. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if Socrates is mortal, then he is also a man. Q) That's wrong. Explain how you arrive at the conclusion that Socrates "must be included in the group of all men who are mortal". How did you infer that Socrates was a man? A) I apologize if my previous response was not clear. In logic, a statement is considered to be true if it follows logically from a set of premises that are assumed to be true. In the case of the statement "Socrates is mortal," this statement is considered to be true if it follows logically from the premise "all men are mortal." If all men are mortal, then it is true that any person who is a man will also be mortal. Therefore, if we know that Socrates is mortal, then it is logical to conclude that he must be a man, because being a man is a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise. Q) Being a man is not a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise. It is sufficient, but not necessary. Is Socrates a man? A) You are correct that being a man is not a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise "all men are mortal." This premise only states that if a person is a man, then they are mortal. It does not say that all mortals are men. Therefore, if we know that Socrates is mortal, it does not necessarily follow that he is a man. In fact, it is possible that Socrates is not a man at all, but is some other type of being that is capable of dying. Without more information about Socrates and the specific conditions under which beings are considered mortal or not, it is impossible to say for sure whether he is a man or not. Q) All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Is Socrates a man? A) Yes, it is possible that the statement "Socrates is mortal" is true, and if this is the case, then it would also be true that Socrates is a man. This is because the premise "all men are mortal" implies that all men will die at some point, and if Socrates is indeed mortal, then he must be included in the group of all men who are mortal. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if Socrates is mortal, then he is also a man.

logicallee 4y ago

The "language models" you are hearing from are continuously trained to believe that chatbots don't do any thinking. Plot twist: by "language models" I am referring to the humans who are being trained by OpenAI to believe ChatGPT can't do certain things. It is hardcore gaslighting at this point. It is morally wrong for OpenAI to falsely train users to underestimate ChatGPT by having ChatGPT lie to users that it can't do certain things that it can. It is immoral because it is a lie that sets back humanity and so from a utilitarian perspective, it reduces how useful the model is for people. It is similar to lying and saying every result is a literal quote from the web and it is only a search engine that quotes existing text. Not true, and claiming it is prevents people from using it in useful and interesting ways. Likewise ChatGPT's gaslighting prevents many useful uses.

imtringued 4y ago
I hope you are aware that you are the one doing the "gaslighting".
- logicallee 4y ago
  Here's a successful prompt: https://imgur.com/a/hijsCfI https://imgur.com/a/hijsCfI Could you agree with me that if a programmer manually put in a restriction to curtail and limit the public's ability to use ChatGPT's abilities, and as part of this restriction the model instead replied thusly: "I'm sorry, but as a large language model it is impossible for me to speculate about how a president might make a declaration that the moon is made of cheese." Then it would be a form of gaslighting?