4 ms·

What evidence do I have that I'm more than a fancy autocomplete, myself? The use of squishy protestations, in lieu of objective metrics, make LeCun's argument r

by drcode 6y ago

What evidence do I have that I'm more than a fancy autocomplete, myself? The use of squishy protestations, in lieu of objective metrics, make LeCun's argument rather unconvincing.

btrask 6y ago
If you are nothing more than fancy autocomplete, then why should we argue with you? GPT is not trying to make a point and is not capable of changing its mind. You, hopefully, are. Edit: I don't think you should be getting downvoted because it's a valid (and interesting) question.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  That is an interesting point. However, one can potentially conceive of us human changing our minds as a form of real-time model updating.
nightski 6y ago
High level reasoning and planning about what you are writing about. GPT-3 generates text one word at a time. The results are impressive for what it is. But it will not plan out what it wants to say ahead of time and construct the message to achieve that objective.
- lostmsu 6y ago
  But of course it does within its own horizon (e.g. token window).
bmgxyz 6y ago
I was about to write a reply claiming that you're different from autocomplete because you take input from more sources than just the words you've said before (e.g. your vision), but actually I can't see how that's much different from a language model. The approach seems the same, and all that's really different is the shape of the input data. But this uncovers difficult questions about free will. If we're all just autocompleting based on a combination of the world around us, our internal state, and the physical laws, then what even is intelligence anyway? This view reduces thought to nothing more than an interesting dust storm. Still, I find the original argument compelling, if not logically convincing. There does seem to be something missing from GPT-3 that differs fundamentally from human intelligence or AGI. But maybe that's an illusion. Edit: I don't think you should have been downvoted, since your question is valid and constructive in my view.
- minerjoe 6y ago
  > we're all just autocompleting That's pretty much it. I do belive it's possible to actually develop "will", but almost nobody thinks that they need to work on such things. They confuse being a programmed robot with being a programmer.

by drcode 6y ago

What evidence do I have that I'm more than a fancy autocomplete, myself? The use of squishy protestations, in lieu of objective metrics, make LeCun's argument rather unconvincing.

btrask 6y ago

If you are nothing more than fancy autocomplete, then why should we argue with you? GPT is not trying to make a point and is not capable of changing its mind. You, hopefully, are. Edit: I don't think you should be getting downvoted because it's a valid (and interesting) question.

dwaltrip 6y ago
That is an interesting point. However, one can potentially conceive of us human changing our minds as a form of real-time model updating.

nightski 6y ago

High level reasoning and planning about what you are writing about. GPT-3 generates text one word at a time. The results are impressive for what it is. But it will not plan out what it wants to say ahead of time and construct the message to achieve that objective.

lostmsu 6y ago
But of course it does within its own horizon (e.g. token window).

bmgxyz 6y ago

I was about to write a reply claiming that you're different from autocomplete because you take input from more sources than just the words you've said before (e.g. your vision), but actually I can't see how that's much different from a language model. The approach seems the same, and all that's really different is the shape of the input data. But this uncovers difficult questions about free will. If we're all just autocompleting based on a combination of the world around us, our internal state, and the physical laws, then what even is intelligence anyway? This view reduces thought to nothing more than an interesting dust storm. Still, I find the original argument compelling, if not logically convincing. There does seem to be something missing from GPT-3 that differs fundamentally from human intelligence or AGI. But maybe that's an illusion. Edit: I don't think you should have been downvoted, since your question is valid and constructive in my view.

minerjoe 6y ago
> we're all just autocompleting That's pretty much it. I do belive it's possible to actually develop "will", but almost nobody thinks that they need to work on such things. They confuse being a programmed robot with being a programmer.