4 ms·

> “If an option has a positive gamma, the delta will be negative; the reverse is not true” This is pretty good confirmation that GPT3’s ability to truly reason

> “If an option has a positive gamma, the delta will be negative; the reverse is not true” This is pretty good confirmation that GPT3’s ability to truly reason about anything is merely an illusion. The above quote, couldn’t be more incorrect despite sounding intelligent, and despite countless similar sentences in financial papers/academia. And therein lies GPT3’s greatest accomplishment.

jaredtn 6y ago
“GPT-3 has stated an incorrect fact, therefore GPT-3 is unable to truly reason about anything.” - qeternity Here we see that qeternity has stated an incorrect fact, therefore qeternity is unable to truly reason about anything :) There is some fascinating work demonstrating generalization on arithmetic problems GPT-3 has never seen before, what do you think about that?
- qeternity 6y ago
  And once again, generalization does not imply reasoning. A linear regression is able to generalize on data it hasn’t seen before but that doesn’t mean it’s reasoning about anything. GPT-3 is just the biggest exercise in curve fitting ever conducted.
  - 0-_-0 6y ago
    Linear regression is reasoning, but on a very small scale.
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  GPT-3 Objectively does not reason about anything, thats the point, it emits patterns.
savanaly 6y ago
>anything So if a human ever stated such nonsense, that would disprove the idea that they could truly reason about "anything" as well? Or does it just prove that they are capable of spouting nonsense?
hombre_fatal 6y ago
Notice how this doesn't bar it from approximating human discourse. In fact, it's a staple of how we communicate and would have to be one of the essential tools in an impersonator's toolbox. "The above quote couldn’t be more incorrect despite sounding intelligent" could be leveled at comments on any HN submission. Though it can't confirm that the speaker is incapable of reason, else us humans would be in big trouble. The reason that we know that GPT-3 isn't capable of reason is because we know how it was made. If we ever achieve general AI, I think it will emerge from as black a box as human consciousness, and we will be back to bedrock on philosophical questions like "are we actually conscious?" and "when does something become conscious?" except now we won't have to ponder those questions alone.
- darepublic 6y ago
  Depends on your definition of general AI. I personally think it might be achieved by us without such a black box; that we could understand why it works though unable to predict how it will behave exactly. As for human consciousness I wouldn't ever assume something we built is the same as it until we understand our own brains further.
User23 6y ago
GPT3 is a bullshit[1] generator. Real artificial intelligence will be a reliable[2] bullshit recognizer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit [2] Low rates of both type I and II errors.

jaredtn 6y ago

“GPT-3 has stated an incorrect fact, therefore GPT-3 is unable to truly reason about anything.” - qeternity Here we see that qeternity has stated an incorrect fact, therefore qeternity is unable to truly reason about anything :) There is some fascinating work demonstrating generalization on arithmetic problems GPT-3 has never seen before, what do you think about that?

qeternity 6y ago
And once again, generalization does not imply reasoning. A linear regression is able to generalize on data it hasn’t seen before but that doesn’t mean it’s reasoning about anything. GPT-3 is just the biggest exercise in curve fitting ever conducted.
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  Linear regression is reasoning, but on a very small scale.
throwaway2048 6y ago
GPT-3 Objectively does not reason about anything, thats the point, it emits patterns.

savanaly 6y ago

>anything So if a human ever stated such nonsense, that would disprove the idea that they could truly reason about "anything" as well? Or does it just prove that they are capable of spouting nonsense?

hombre_fatal 6y ago

Notice how this doesn't bar it from approximating human discourse. In fact, it's a staple of how we communicate and would have to be one of the essential tools in an impersonator's toolbox. "The above quote couldn’t be more incorrect despite sounding intelligent" could be leveled at comments on any HN submission. Though it can't confirm that the speaker is incapable of reason, else us humans would be in big trouble. The reason that we know that GPT-3 isn't capable of reason is because we know how it was made. If we ever achieve general AI, I think it will emerge from as black a box as human consciousness, and we will be back to bedrock on philosophical questions like "are we actually conscious?" and "when does something become conscious?" except now we won't have to ponder those questions alone.

darepublic 6y ago
Depends on your definition of general AI. I personally think it might be achieved by us without such a black box; that we could understand why it works though unable to predict how it will behave exactly. As for human consciousness I wouldn't ever assume something we built is the same as it until we understand our own brains further.

User23 6y ago

GPT3 is a bullshit[1] generator. Real artificial intelligence will be a reliable[2] bullshit recognizer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit [2] Low rates of both type I and II errors.