8 ms·

I'm more fatigued by people denying the obvious that ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary. People have been fantasizing about the dawn of AI for almost

I'm more fatigued by people denying the obvious that ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary. People have been fantasizing about the dawn of AI for almost a century and none managed to predict the rampant denialism of the past few months. I suppose it makes sense though. Denial is the default response when we face threats to our identity and sense of self worth.

liveoneggs 4y ago
So, to you, ChatGPT is approaching AGI?
- bioemerl 4y ago
  I do believe if we are going to get AGI without some random revolutionary breakthrough, to achieve it iteratively, It's going to come through language models. Think about it. What's the most expressive medium we have which is also absolutely inundated with data? To broadly be able to predict human speech you need to broadly be able to predict the human mind. To broadly predict a human mind requires you build a model of it, and to have a model of a human mind? Welcome to general intelligence. We won't realize we've created an AGI until someone makes a text model, starts throwing random problems at it, and discovers that it's able to solve them.
  - hhjinks 4y ago
    > To broadly be able to predict human speech you need to broadly be able to predict the human mind This is a non sequitur. The human mind does a whole lot more than string words together. Being able to predict which word would logically follow another does not require the ability to predict anything other than just that.
    - Timwi 4y ago
      I think what the commenter is saying is that, in time, language models too will do a lot more than string words together. If it's large enough, and you train it well enough to respond to “what's the best next move in this chess position?” prompts with good moves, it will inevitably learn chess.
      - hhjinks 4y ago
        I don't think that follows, necessarily. Chess has an unfathomable amount of states. While the LLM might be able to play chess competently, I would not say it has learned chess unless it is able to judge the relative strength of various moves. From my understanding, an LLM will not judge future states of a chess game when responding to such a prompt. Without that ability, it's no different than someone receiving anal bead communications from Magnus Carlsen.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        An LLM could theoretically create a model with which to understand chess and predict a next move, you just need to adjust the training data and train the model until that behavior appears. The expressiveness of language lets this be true of almost everything.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      Exactly. Since language is a compressed and transmittable result of our thought, to predict text as accurately as possible requires you do the same. A model with understanding of the human mind will outperform one without. > Being able to predict which word would logically follow another does not require the ability to predict anything other than just that. Why? Wouldn't you expect that technique to generally fail if it isn't intelligent enough to know what's happening in the sentence?
  - moron4hire 4y ago
    > I do believe if we are going to get AGI without some random revolutionary breakthrough, to achieve it iteratively, It's going to come through language models. Language is way, way far removed from intelligence. This is well-known in cognitive psychology. You'll find plenty of examples of stroke victims who are still intelligent but have lost the ability to produce coherent sentences, and (though much rarer) examples of people who can produce clear, eloquent prose, yet are so learning and mentally challenged that they can't even tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      We don't judge AI by their ability to produce language, we judge them by their conference and ability to respond intelligently, to give us information we can use.
  - mattr47 4y ago
    "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent." — Qui-Gon Jinn, The Phantom Menace.
- tarsinge 4y ago
  Why the obsession with AGI? The point is that ChatGPT is already useful.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
    Is it? I see it mostly generates BS much faster.
    - rhn_mk1 4y ago
      Brothers Grimm would like a word with you about what "BS" means. ChatGPT is good at making up stories.
- ballenf 4y ago
  Perhaps a more interesting question is "how much better do we understand what characteristics AGI will have due to ChatGPT?" We don't really understand what intelligence means -- in humans or our creations -- but ChatGPT gives us a little more insight (just like ELIZA, and the psychological research behind it, did). At the very least, ChatGPT helps us build increasingly better Turing tests.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Yes. It is obviously already weak AGI (obvious to anyone if they saw it 20 years ago). It is also obvious that we are in the middle of a shift of some kind. Very hard to see from within, but clearly we will look back at 2022 as the beginning of something…
RivieraKid 4y ago
> I suppose it makes sense though. Denial is the default response when we face threats to our identity and sense of self worth. It's important to note that this is your assumption which I believe to be wrong (for most people here).
addcommitpush 4y ago
There's a fellow that kinda predicted it in 1950 [0]: > These arguments take the form, "I grant you that you can make machines do all the things you have mentioned but you will never be able to make one to do X." > [...] > The criticisms that we are considering here are often disguised forms of the argument from consciousness, Usually if one maintains that a machine can do one of these things, and describes the kind of method that the machine could use, one will not make much of an impression. Every time "learning machines" are able to do a new thing, there's a "wait, it is just mechanical, _real_ intelligence is the goalpost". [0] https://www.espace-turing.fr/IMG/pdf/Computing_Machinery_and_Intelligence_A-M-_Turing.pdf https://www.espace-turing.fr/IMG/pdf/Computing_Machinery_and...
- foldr 4y ago
  >Every time "learning machines" are able to do a new thing, there's a "wait, it is just mechanical, _real_ intelligence is the goalpost". Just because people shift the goalposts doesn't mean that the new position of the goalposts isn't closer to being correct than the old position. You can criticise the people for being inconsistent or failing to anticipate certain developments, but that doesn't tell you anything about where the goalposts should be.
rsynnott 4y ago
> ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary For _what purpose_, tho? It's a good party trick, but its tendency to be confidently wrong makes using it for anything important a bit fraught.
- cheschire 4y ago
  If you're the type of person that struggles to ramp up production of a knowledge product, but has great success in improving a knowledge product through an iterative review process, then these generative pre-trained transformers are fantastic tools in your toolbox. That's about the only purpose I've found so far, but it seems a big one?
- kriops 4y ago
  If you work at a computer, it will increase your productivity. Revolutionary is not the word I'd use, but finding use cases isn't hard.
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    I can buy that it's a better/worse search engine (better in that it's easier to formulate a query and you get the response right there without having to parse the results; worse in that there's a decent chance the response is nonsense, and it's very confident when it's being wrong about things). I can't really imagine asking it a question about anything I cared about and not verifying via a second source, though, given its accuracy issues. This makes it feel a lot less useful.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
    But will it? After accounting for the time needed to fix all the bugs it introduces?
    - Timwi 4y ago
      Humans introduce bugs too. ChatGPT is still new, so it probably makes more mistakes than a human at the moment, but it's only a matter of time until someone creates the first language model that will measurably outperform humans in this regard (and several other important regards).
moron4hire 4y ago
The problem is that ChatGPT is about as useful as all the other dilettantes claiming to be polymaths. Shallow, unreliable knowledge on lots of things only gets you so far. Might be impressive at parties, but once there's real, hard work to do, these things fall apart.
- falcor84 4y ago
  Even if ChatGPT could only make us 10% better at solving the "easy" things but on a global scale, that is already a colossal benefit to society.
latexr 4y ago
> I suppose it makes sense though. Denial is the default response when we face threats to our identity and sense of self worth. Respectfully, that reads as needlessly combative within the context. It sounds like the blockchain proponents who say that the only people who are against cryptocurrencies are the ones who are “bitter for having missed the boat”.¹ It is possible and perfectly reasonable to identify problems in ChatGPT and similar technologies without feeling threatened. Simple example: someone who is retired and monetarily well off, whose way of living and sense of self worth are in no way affected by developments in AI, can still be critical and express valid concerns when these models tell you that it’s safe to boil a baby² or give other confident but absurdly wrong answers to important questions. ¹ I’m not saying that’s your intention, but consider that type of rhetoric may be counterproductive if you’re trying to make another understand your point of view. ² I passed by that specific example on Mastodon but I’m not finding it now.

liveoneggs 4y ago

So, to you, ChatGPT is approaching AGI?

bioemerl 4y ago
I do believe if we are going to get AGI without some random revolutionary breakthrough, to achieve it iteratively, It's going to come through language models. Think about it. What's the most expressive medium we have which is also absolutely inundated with data? To broadly be able to predict human speech you need to broadly be able to predict the human mind. To broadly predict a human mind requires you build a model of it, and to have a model of a human mind? Welcome to general intelligence. We won't realize we've created an AGI until someone makes a text model, starts throwing random problems at it, and discovers that it's able to solve them.
- hhjinks 4y ago
  > To broadly be able to predict human speech you need to broadly be able to predict the human mind This is a non sequitur. The human mind does a whole lot more than string words together. Being able to predict which word would logically follow another does not require the ability to predict anything other than just that.
  - Timwi 4y ago
    I think what the commenter is saying is that, in time, language models too will do a lot more than string words together. If it's large enough, and you train it well enough to respond to “what's the best next move in this chess position?” prompts with good moves, it will inevitably learn chess.
    - hhjinks 4y ago
      I don't think that follows, necessarily. Chess has an unfathomable amount of states. While the LLM might be able to play chess competently, I would not say it has learned chess unless it is able to judge the relative strength of various moves. From my understanding, an LLM will not judge future states of a chess game when responding to such a prompt. Without that ability, it's no different than someone receiving anal bead communications from Magnus Carlsen.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        An LLM could theoretically create a model with which to understand chess and predict a next move, you just need to adjust the training data and train the model until that behavior appears. The expressiveness of language lets this be true of almost everything.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Exactly. Since language is a compressed and transmittable result of our thought, to predict text as accurately as possible requires you do the same. A model with understanding of the human mind will outperform one without. > Being able to predict which word would logically follow another does not require the ability to predict anything other than just that. Why? Wouldn't you expect that technique to generally fail if it isn't intelligent enough to know what's happening in the sentence?
- moron4hire 4y ago
  > I do believe if we are going to get AGI without some random revolutionary breakthrough, to achieve it iteratively, It's going to come through language models. Language is way, way far removed from intelligence. This is well-known in cognitive psychology. You'll find plenty of examples of stroke victims who are still intelligent but have lost the ability to produce coherent sentences, and (though much rarer) examples of people who can produce clear, eloquent prose, yet are so learning and mentally challenged that they can't even tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    We don't judge AI by their ability to produce language, we judge them by their conference and ability to respond intelligently, to give us information we can use.
- mattr47 4y ago
  "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent." — Qui-Gon Jinn, The Phantom Menace.
tarsinge 4y ago
Why the obsession with AGI? The point is that ChatGPT is already useful.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  Is it? I see it mostly generates BS much faster.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    Brothers Grimm would like a word with you about what "BS" means. ChatGPT is good at making up stories.
ballenf 4y ago
Perhaps a more interesting question is "how much better do we understand what characteristics AGI will have due to ChatGPT?" We don't really understand what intelligence means -- in humans or our creations -- but ChatGPT gives us a little more insight (just like ELIZA, and the psychological research behind it, did). At the very least, ChatGPT helps us build increasingly better Turing tests.
dr_dshiv 4y ago
Yes. It is obviously already weak AGI (obvious to anyone if they saw it 20 years ago). It is also obvious that we are in the middle of a shift of some kind. Very hard to see from within, but clearly we will look back at 2022 as the beginning of something…

RivieraKid 4y ago

> I suppose it makes sense though. Denial is the default response when we face threats to our identity and sense of self worth. It's important to note that this is your assumption which I believe to be wrong (for most people here).

addcommitpush 4y ago

There's a fellow that kinda predicted it in 1950 [0]: > These arguments take the form, "I grant you that you can make machines do all the things you have mentioned but you will never be able to make one to do X." > [...] > The criticisms that we are considering here are often disguised forms of the argument from consciousness, Usually if one maintains that a machine can do one of these things, and describes the kind of method that the machine could use, one will not make much of an impression. Every time "learning machines" are able to do a new thing, there's a "wait, it is just mechanical, _real_ intelligence is the goalpost". [0] https://www.espace-turing.fr/IMG/pdf/Computing_Machinery_and_Intelligence_A-M-_Turing.pdf https://www.espace-turing.fr/IMG/pdf/Computing_Machinery_and...

foldr 4y ago
>Every time "learning machines" are able to do a new thing, there's a "wait, it is just mechanical, _real_ intelligence is the goalpost". Just because people shift the goalposts doesn't mean that the new position of the goalposts isn't closer to being correct than the old position. You can criticise the people for being inconsistent or failing to anticipate certain developments, but that doesn't tell you anything about where the goalposts should be.

rsynnott 4y ago

> ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary For _what purpose_, tho? It's a good party trick, but its tendency to be confidently wrong makes using it for anything important a bit fraught.

cheschire 4y ago
If you're the type of person that struggles to ramp up production of a knowledge product, but has great success in improving a knowledge product through an iterative review process, then these generative pre-trained transformers are fantastic tools in your toolbox. That's about the only purpose I've found so far, but it seems a big one?
kriops 4y ago
If you work at a computer, it will increase your productivity. Revolutionary is not the word I'd use, but finding use cases isn't hard.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  I can buy that it's a better/worse search engine (better in that it's easier to formulate a query and you get the response right there without having to parse the results; worse in that there's a decent chance the response is nonsense, and it's very confident when it's being wrong about things). I can't really imagine asking it a question about anything I cared about and not verifying via a second source, though, given its accuracy issues. This makes it feel a lot less useful.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  But will it? After accounting for the time needed to fix all the bugs it introduces?
  - Timwi 4y ago
    Humans introduce bugs too. ChatGPT is still new, so it probably makes more mistakes than a human at the moment, but it's only a matter of time until someone creates the first language model that will measurably outperform humans in this regard (and several other important regards).

moron4hire 4y ago

The problem is that ChatGPT is about as useful as all the other dilettantes claiming to be polymaths. Shallow, unreliable knowledge on lots of things only gets you so far. Might be impressive at parties, but once there's real, hard work to do, these things fall apart.

falcor84 4y ago
Even if ChatGPT could only make us 10% better at solving the "easy" things but on a global scale, that is already a colossal benefit to society.

latexr 4y ago

> I suppose it makes sense though. Denial is the default response when we face threats to our identity and sense of self worth. Respectfully, that reads as needlessly combative within the context. It sounds like the blockchain proponents who say that the only people who are against cryptocurrencies are the ones who are “bitter for having missed the boat”.¹ It is possible and perfectly reasonable to identify problems in ChatGPT and similar technologies without feeling threatened. Simple example: someone who is retired and monetarily well off, whose way of living and sense of self worth are in no way affected by developments in AI, can still be critical and express valid concerns when these models tell you that it’s safe to boil a baby² or give other confident but absurdly wrong answers to important questions. ¹ I’m not saying that’s your intention, but consider that type of rhetoric may be counterproductive if you’re trying to make another understand your point of view. ² I passed by that specific example on Mastodon but I’m not finding it now.