4 ms·

> prediction of the next token Assessing logical consistency of a following statement would increase prediction accuracy (assuming that human-generated text is

> prediction of the next token Assessing logical consistency of a following statement would increase prediction accuracy (assuming that human-generated text is more consistent than it is not), but only after you have plucked all lower-hanging fruit. The best model of what comes next in a math paper is a mathematician. So GPT-N not trying to does not necessarily mean GPT-N+1 can't do it, it just means that it has cheaper ways to increase its prediction scores.

js8 5y ago
This raises a question whether the best prediction should be a measurement of intelligence. GPT-3 might well be capable of super-intelligence, for what we know, but if we feed it examples on human level of thought, it will interact with us on human (i.e. stupid) level of thought, because that's what we are teaching it. Just like adults choose to talk to children on their level. However, a truly intelligent system, I think, can transgress this boundary. It can protest against the task of giving the next best prediction, so to speak. I don't think that mathematician is necessarily the best model for a math paper; I think the best model might as well be the platonic ideal of what it means to do mathematics - logical correctness of all the conclusions.
- Vetch 5y ago
  Unless you're substituting GPT3 for AGI, GPT3 is not a super-intelligence. It's a set number of matrix multiplications that completes in polynomial time. Because Transformer context is fixed, and given the limitations of training, adding non-determinism (tree search) means it goes off the rails and is prone to getting trapped in cycles anytime it doesn't quickly terminate.
- dTal 5y ago
  Has anyone tried prompting GPT-3 with "the following is a transcript of a conversation with a superintelligent artificial intelligence, in which it solves all of humanity's problems"?

4 ms·

> prediction of the next token Assessing logical consistency of a following statement would increase prediction accuracy (assuming that human-generated text is

by the8472 5y ago

js8 5y ago
This raises a question whether the best prediction should be a measurement of intelligence. GPT-3 might well be capable of super-intelligence, for what we know, but if we feed it examples on human level of thought, it will interact with us on human (i.e. stupid) level of thought, because that's what we are teaching it. Just like adults choose to talk to children on their level. However, a truly intelligent system, I think, can transgress this boundary. It can protest against the task of giving the next best prediction, so to speak. I don't think that mathematician is necessarily the best model for a math paper; I think the best model might as well be the platonic ideal of what it means to do mathematics - logical correctness of all the conclusions.
- Vetch 5y ago
  Unless you're substituting GPT3 for AGI, GPT3 is not a super-intelligence. It's a set number of matrix multiplications that completes in polynomial time. Because Transformer context is fixed, and given the limitations of training, adding non-determinism (tree search) means it goes off the rails and is prone to getting trapped in cycles anytime it doesn't quickly terminate.
- dTal 5y ago
  Has anyone tried prompting GPT-3 with "the following is a transcript of a conversation with a superintelligent artificial intelligence, in which it solves all of humanity's problems"?