4 ms·

This might totally work and it's kind of impressive if it does. I'm still biased towards ultra skepticism towards all of this since the trustworthiness of all d

This might totally work and it's kind of impressive if it does. I'm still biased towards ultra skepticism towards all of this since the trustworthiness of all demos like this is completely corrupted at this point due to cherry picking and other deceptive tricks.

tectonic 5y ago
I had to try a few times to get the prompt right, but that's the limit of the cherrypicking. You're correct that it doesn't work nearly as well on more complex, less temporally stable sites like Reddit.
sxp 5y ago
The skepticism is warranted for any bleeding edge technology. I wonder if there's another version of a Turing test when a technology can be considered sufficiently advanced when it's indistinguishable from a fake version you've seen in sci-fi. E.g, the Boston Dynamics' dancing robot video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn3KWM1kuAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn3KWM1kuAw) still looks fake to me because it's at the level that I would expect to see from Hollywood CGI rather than a real tech demo. If I saw the video anywhere else but on the BD page, I would have enjoyed it and forgotten about it since it's an average CGI video.
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  I genuinely don't understand your position. Are you saying a tech demo is only impressive if it can do things that can't be simulated? What can't be shown via simulation or CGI with enough time and money today? If we're limiting ourselves to video there's no interactive component. Even though that dancing video likely had hundreds of takes, the part that makes it impressive is that it's real. I swear I'm not trying to be disagreeable here - I honestly don't understand your perspective.
  - MrOrelliOReilly 5y ago
    I think what the author is trying to say is that if a technology is sufficiently advanced it seems like it can’t be real, meaning it’s something only possible with CGI. So we see these dancing robots, think “just more CGI”, then are astounded when we find out it’s real
    - sxp 5y ago
      Exactly. CGI is just movie magic. And now some real world tech demos are sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from CGI/magic.
      - dvtrn 5y ago
        Hrm. Is uncanny locomotion to modern robotics what uncanny valley is to CGI? Fun to ponder.
    - lolthishuman 5y ago
      Uncanny valley territory. Definitely will be a more subtle but significant “oh my…” strangely off but can’t put your finger on it. That Ben guy the female robot and her brother having a debate was essentially all of that. Sophie maybe?
csomar 5y ago
If you got an invite for GPT-3, give it a shot. I discounted it at first, but then I gave it a few shots and was actually crept out a bit. Even though it is "randomly" making things up as it goes, it does show what seems like intelligence just from the sheer amount of data it is trained on. One thing I was amazed by: GPT-3 could be a great autocompletion engine for any programming language or configuration schema. Things like Grub configuration file, xkb file could be intuitively completed by GTP-3. And even more: GTP-3 could build basic "concepts" and apply them to that domain knowledge. This seems to emerge naturally rather than something pre-planned by OpenAI. After all, I don't think OpenAI has planned for GPT-3 to understand xkb keyboard layouts.
- lolthishuman 5y ago
  You make up things randomly as you go. You never thought ahead of any thought. Every thought you’ve ever had is essentially a procedurally generated prompt based on your biased models.
  - still_grokking 5y ago
    > You make up things randomly as you go. You never thought ahead of any thought. I don't think that's true. Usually you need to think a lot about something before coming up with "the right" thought(s). > Every thought you’ve ever had is essentially a procedurally generated prompt based on your biased models. That may be. But the interesting part is that those models change as you use them just by using them.
    - antris 5y ago
      > I don't think that's true. How long did you have to think to produce that thought? Or did it just pop into your head instantly? The point is, you cannot think of an upcoming thought, before you have it in your head. Otherwise you would be seeing into the future. What you are talking about in your comment is reaching a conclusion based on previous thoughts. Yes, often we link our thoughts together into a narrative or a conclusion after we've had the thoughts, but the thoughts themselves? Those seem to come out of nowhere.

tectonic 5y ago

I had to try a few times to get the prompt right, but that's the limit of the cherrypicking. You're correct that it doesn't work nearly as well on more complex, less temporally stable sites like Reddit.

sxp 5y ago

The skepticism is warranted for any bleeding edge technology. I wonder if there's another version of a Turing test when a technology can be considered sufficiently advanced when it's indistinguishable from a fake version you've seen in sci-fi. E.g, the Boston Dynamics' dancing robot video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn3KWM1kuAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn3KWM1kuAw) still looks fake to me because it's at the level that I would expect to see from Hollywood CGI rather than a real tech demo. If I saw the video anywhere else but on the BD page, I would have enjoyed it and forgotten about it since it's an average CGI video.

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
I genuinely don't understand your position. Are you saying a tech demo is only impressive if it can do things that can't be simulated? What can't be shown via simulation or CGI with enough time and money today? If we're limiting ourselves to video there's no interactive component. Even though that dancing video likely had hundreds of takes, the part that makes it impressive is that it's real. I swear I'm not trying to be disagreeable here - I honestly don't understand your perspective.
- MrOrelliOReilly 5y ago
  I think what the author is trying to say is that if a technology is sufficiently advanced it seems like it can’t be real, meaning it’s something only possible with CGI. So we see these dancing robots, think “just more CGI”, then are astounded when we find out it’s real
  - sxp 5y ago
    Exactly. CGI is just movie magic. And now some real world tech demos are sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from CGI/magic.
    - dvtrn 5y ago
      Hrm. Is uncanny locomotion to modern robotics what uncanny valley is to CGI? Fun to ponder.
  - lolthishuman 5y ago
    Uncanny valley territory. Definitely will be a more subtle but significant “oh my…” strangely off but can’t put your finger on it. That Ben guy the female robot and her brother having a debate was essentially all of that. Sophie maybe?

csomar 5y ago

If you got an invite for GPT-3, give it a shot. I discounted it at first, but then I gave it a few shots and was actually crept out a bit. Even though it is "randomly" making things up as it goes, it does show what seems like intelligence just from the sheer amount of data it is trained on. One thing I was amazed by: GPT-3 could be a great autocompletion engine for any programming language or configuration schema. Things like Grub configuration file, xkb file could be intuitively completed by GTP-3. And even more: GTP-3 could build basic "concepts" and apply them to that domain knowledge. This seems to emerge naturally rather than something pre-planned by OpenAI. After all, I don't think OpenAI has planned for GPT-3 to understand xkb keyboard layouts.

lolthishuman 5y ago
You make up things randomly as you go. You never thought ahead of any thought. Every thought you’ve ever had is essentially a procedurally generated prompt based on your biased models.
- still_grokking 5y ago
  > You make up things randomly as you go. You never thought ahead of any thought. I don't think that's true. Usually you need to think a lot about something before coming up with "the right" thought(s). > Every thought you’ve ever had is essentially a procedurally generated prompt based on your biased models. That may be. But the interesting part is that those models change as you use them just by using them.
  - antris 5y ago
    > I don't think that's true. How long did you have to think to produce that thought? Or did it just pop into your head instantly? The point is, you cannot think of an upcoming thought, before you have it in your head. Otherwise you would be seeing into the future. What you are talking about in your comment is reaching a conclusion based on previous thoughts. Yes, often we link our thoughts together into a narrative or a conclusion after we've had the thoughts, but the thoughts themselves? Those seem to come out of nowhere.