5 ms·

I fully agree. It also seems like these chatbots are not even as good as the latest large language models. Either that or the language model conversations are v

by quonn 4y ago

I fully agree. It also seems like these chatbots are not even as good as the latest large language models. Either that or the language model conversations are very handpicked. I think we have a long long way to go.

tormeh 4y ago
I suspect they're just a bunch of regexes in a trench coat, personally.
RugnirViking 4y ago
> "or the language model conversations are very handpicked." This is very much the case. Experimenting with recent large models shows them to be undoubtedly powerful, but still easily distinguishable from intelligence. They regularly contradict themselves and spout unlikely narratives. Asking relatively simple questions often show a lack of understanding. That being said, it would not surprise me if the chatbots are nevertheless worse than recent large language models. For some example successes and (often amusing) failures, see https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/papers/GPT3CompleteTests.html https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/papers/GPT3CompleteTests.html For what it's worth, those examples are illustrative, but the best way to get a feel with them (how how handpicked examples may or may not be) is experimenting yourself with prompts.
- nateburke 4y ago
  > They regularly contradict themselves and spout unlikely narratives. Asking relatively simple questions often show a lack of understanding. Maybe not AGI, but perhaps we have already attained AGP (artificial general politician)
- naasking 4y ago
  > Experimenting with recent large models shows them to be undoubtedly powerful, but still easily distinguishable from intelligence. They regularly contradict themselves and spout unlikely narratives. Sounds like lots of people I've met.
  - camjohnson26 4y ago
    But that’s a failure mode of humans, a lot of humans can recognize this in themselves and self correct.
    - naasking 4y ago
      But not all, or religions would look nothing like they currently do. Are those people still intelligent?

by quonn 4y ago

tormeh 4y ago

I suspect they're just a bunch of regexes in a trench coat, personally.

RugnirViking 4y ago

> "or the language model conversations are very handpicked." This is very much the case. Experimenting with recent large models shows them to be undoubtedly powerful, but still easily distinguishable from intelligence. They regularly contradict themselves and spout unlikely narratives. Asking relatively simple questions often show a lack of understanding. That being said, it would not surprise me if the chatbots are nevertheless worse than recent large language models. For some example successes and (often amusing) failures, see https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/papers/GPT3CompleteTests.html https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/papers/GPT3CompleteTests.html For what it's worth, those examples are illustrative, but the best way to get a feel with them (how how handpicked examples may or may not be) is experimenting yourself with prompts.

nateburke 4y ago
> They regularly contradict themselves and spout unlikely narratives. Asking relatively simple questions often show a lack of understanding. Maybe not AGI, but perhaps we have already attained AGP (artificial general politician)
naasking 4y ago
> Experimenting with recent large models shows them to be undoubtedly powerful, but still easily distinguishable from intelligence. They regularly contradict themselves and spout unlikely narratives. Sounds like lots of people I've met.
- camjohnson26 4y ago
  But that’s a failure mode of humans, a lot of humans can recognize this in themselves and self correct.
  - naasking 4y ago
    But not all, or religions would look nothing like they currently do. Are those people still intelligent?