3 ms·

> whereas a human can take arbitrary time to think, Are you saying that GPT-6 would be less intelligent than a human, because we could give it an arbitrary dea

> whereas a human can take arbitrary time to think, Are you saying that GPT-6 would be less intelligent than a human, because we could give it an arbitrary deadline within which to answer the question, while not restricting a human that way? That doesn't sound like a fair test. I'm probably misrepresenting your position here, and maybe what you're trying to say is "If you gave both GPT-6 and a human as long as they needed go away and think about a problem, the human could use that time to sit and think creatively about the problem, whereas GPT-6 would either know the answer, or not". That's a reasonable intuition and a fair experiment, but I think it hinges on the question of "What does a human do when they go away and think about a problem?". Could it be that they are just clearing their mind of other distractions, and trying to look at the problem from multiple perspectives, which is something that a machine could do more efficiently? In other words, the fact that a human might need to go away and take arbitrary time to think about a problem is a sign that it is the human that lacks efficient general intelligence, not this GPT-6. > can go out and perform experiments, Again, it seems unfair to compare GPT-6 in a deliberately sealed box to a human who is allowed to go away and talk to other humans and use tools and resources that we wouldn't trust GPT-6 with. Putting it another way, if you met someone who had never performed an experiment before, would you think they were not intelligent? > can Google/GPT things themselves, etc. This is an almost Kafkaesque criticism. Are you saying GPT-6 isn't intelligent because it doesn't have access to GPT-6's intelligence, but humans do? Or the fact that humans can go away and use Google means they are more intelligent than GPT-6 which has Google search results built into its "brain" in the first place? > it’s just a big blob of inanimate knowledge. You're just a big blob of inanimate knowledge. Ahem, sorry, what I mean is: Why does knowledge have to be "animate" to be legitimate?

dxbydt 4y ago
> seems unfair to compare GPT-6 in a box to a human who is allowed to talk to other humans Are there any efforts to make one gpt talk to another ? Can the older versions eg. gpt1 and gpt2, talk to each other, and eventually become more performant than gpt3 ?
- astrange 4y ago
  Probably not; you could try gluing the models together but it's unlikely it'd improve them and I'm not sure they have the same architecture. Also, even the small/medium GPT3 models are much much worse than the largest one (DaVinci). On the other hand, the lottery ticket hypothesis says that every good big network contains a good or better smaller network you could extract, if only you knew where it was. (So the reason big models are good is there's more opportunities for the smaller models to appear.)
astrange 4y ago
> Are you saying that GPT-6 would be less intelligent than a human, because we could give it an arbitrary deadline within which to answer the question, while not restricting a human that way? That doesn't sound like a fair test. The basic design of an ML model is just one really big matrix multiplication that always takes the same time - I'm saying we haven't given GPT the ability to not do that, so it always has that arbitrary default. It does have a system where it does beam search through the model instead of simply running it once, but it's not fully recurrent. > That's a reasonable intuition and a fair experiment, but I think it hinges on the question of "What does a human do when they go away and think about a problem?". Could it be that they are just clearing their mind of other distractions, and trying to look at the problem from multiple perspectives, which is something that a machine could do more efficiently? Well, some problems just take longer to think about or need knowledge that isn't already written down. > Putting it another way, if you met someone who had never performed an experiment before, would you think they were not intelligent? I think a prisoner or someone like that could demonstrate they're intelligent. If you're in the room with them, I mean, not like the Chinese room problem. But I think pure "intelligence" is just going to be less interesting that it looks, because it can't accomplish many tasks you'd expect it to if it can't actively interact with anything. > Are you saying GPT-6 isn't intelligent because it doesn't have access to GPT-6's intelligence, but humans do? Or the fact that humans can go away and use Google means they are more intelligent than GPT-6 which has Google search results built into its "brain" in the first place? Human + GPT will be more productive than GPT (at writing things that are actually logically correct) is all I mean. This isn't true of all AI - humans + chess programs are slower than chess programs - it's just because of the specific structure of GPT. > You're just a big blob of inanimate knowledge. Ahem, sorry, what I mean is: Why does knowledge have to be "animate" to be legitimate? I mean, it's cool that it's a big blob of knowledge, but that isn't the human capacity of "intelligence", it's "memory". When it combines different inputs from its memory into a single one fluently, that shows something like intelligence, but it was very expensive to make that happen during training time. And GPT has flaws there you can't fix; for instance, it thinks orioles (the bird) and the Baltimore Orioles are the same thing: https://www.aiweirdness.com/baltimore-orioles-effect/ https://www.aiweirdness.com/baltimore-orioles-effect/
- gwern 4y ago

dxbydt 4y ago

> seems unfair to compare GPT-6 in a box to a human who is allowed to talk to other humans Are there any efforts to make one gpt talk to another ? Can the older versions eg. gpt1 and gpt2, talk to each other, and eventually become more performant than gpt3 ?

astrange 4y ago
Probably not; you could try gluing the models together but it's unlikely it'd improve them and I'm not sure they have the same architecture. Also, even the small/medium GPT3 models are much much worse than the largest one (DaVinci). On the other hand, the lottery ticket hypothesis says that every good big network contains a good or better smaller network you could extract, if only you knew where it was. (So the reason big models are good is there's more opportunities for the smaller models to appear.)

astrange 4y ago

> Are you saying that GPT-6 would be less intelligent than a human, because we could give it an arbitrary deadline within which to answer the question, while not restricting a human that way? That doesn't sound like a fair test. The basic design of an ML model is just one really big matrix multiplication that always takes the same time - I'm saying we haven't given GPT the ability to not do that, so it always has that arbitrary default. It does have a system where it does beam search through the model instead of simply running it once, but it's not fully recurrent. > That's a reasonable intuition and a fair experiment, but I think it hinges on the question of "What does a human do when they go away and think about a problem?". Could it be that they are just clearing their mind of other distractions, and trying to look at the problem from multiple perspectives, which is something that a machine could do more efficiently? Well, some problems just take longer to think about or need knowledge that isn't already written down. > Putting it another way, if you met someone who had never performed an experiment before, would you think they were not intelligent? I think a prisoner or someone like that could demonstrate they're intelligent. If you're in the room with them, I mean, not like the Chinese room problem. But I think pure "intelligence" is just going to be less interesting that it looks, because it can't accomplish many tasks you'd expect it to if it can't actively interact with anything. > Are you saying GPT-6 isn't intelligent because it doesn't have access to GPT-6's intelligence, but humans do? Or the fact that humans can go away and use Google means they are more intelligent than GPT-6 which has Google search results built into its "brain" in the first place? Human + GPT will be more productive than GPT (at writing things that are actually logically correct) is all I mean. This isn't true of all AI - humans + chess programs are slower than chess programs - it's just because of the specific structure of GPT. > You're just a big blob of inanimate knowledge. Ahem, sorry, what I mean is: Why does knowledge have to be "animate" to be legitimate? I mean, it's cool that it's a big blob of knowledge, but that isn't the human capacity of "intelligence", it's "memory". When it combines different inputs from its memory into a single one fluently, that shows something like intelligence, but it was very expensive to make that happen during training time. And GPT has flaws there you can't fix; for instance, it thinks orioles (the bird) and the Baltimore Orioles are the same thing: https://www.aiweirdness.com/baltimore-orioles-effect/ https://www.aiweirdness.com/baltimore-orioles-effect/

gwern 4y ago