10 ms·

Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever Ch

Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever ChatGPT does currently, albeit novel and impressive, is still extremely limited in scope and very far from any sort of general intelligence. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is going to change whole industries.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
I'm not suggesting ChatGPT is generally intelligent, but I am wondering what your criteria are so: What responses/interaction would make you say that it is "very close to any general intelligence?"
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  The best examples we have of a general intelligence are humans. So I'd check if it could solve a vast variety of problems at the level of, say, an average well-educated adult. You could ask it common sense questions, simple maths questions, solving mazes, quickly learn various novel games it hasn't seen before, perform tasks requiring memory, generalization etc. etc. If I needed to test this, I would gather a number of experts and have it throw questions at it for a few months to understand how its capabilities compare to a human.
  - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
    This seems to be precisely what the crowd is doing
nl 4y ago
"general intelligence" means so many things to different people. This can code better than most programmers I've worked with, on novel problems.
- ignu 4y ago
  yeah, exactly. also the skeptics are really hung up on semantics of "intelligence" and not addressing the model's output, much less where this is going to be in upcoming years. like, take home coder test is probably just dead. today. i mean: https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1598745129837281280 https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1598745129837281280
  - nl 4y ago
    I don't think the sceptics have tried it. It's true it gets things wrong sometimes but that's a different problem to synthesising novel solutions.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  ChatGPT seems to disagree with this assessment. Prompt: Can you code better than most programmers? Response: As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I don’t have the ability to write or execute code. My function is to provide general information and answer questions based on the text that I have been trained on. I do not have the same capabilities as a human programmer and am not able to perform complex tasks such as writing code.
  - worldsayshi 4y ago
    Should confront it with some obvious evidence that it can write code. Such as asking it about a coding problem.
    - nl 4y ago
      I like this: > Why can't most programmers solve FizzBuzz? [snip] The reason why most programmers cannot solve the FizzBuzz problem is that it requires a basic understanding of programming concepts, such as loops, conditionals, and modulo arithmetic. Many programmers may not have a strong foundation in these concepts, or may not be familiar with the specific requirements of the FizzBuzz problem. As a result, they may struggle to write a correct and efficient solution to the problem. [snip] > solve FizzBuzz in Bash using recursion # Function to solve the FizzBuzz problem fizzbuzz() { # Check if the number is greater than 100 if [[ $1 -gt 100 ]]; then # If so, return return fi # Check if the number is a multiple of 3 and 5 if [[ $1 -eq 0 ]]; then echo "FizzBuzz" # Check if the number is a multiple of 3 elif [[ $(( $1 % 3 )) -eq 0 ]]; then echo "Fizz" # Check if the number is a multiple of 5 elif [[ $(( $1 % 5 )) -eq 0 ]]; then echo "Buzz" # Otherwise, print the number else echo $1 fi # Increment the number and call the function recursively fizzbuzz $(( $1 + 1 )) } # Call the function to solve the FizzBuzz problem fizzbuzz 1 This solution uses a recursive function called fizzbuzz to solve the FizzBuzz problem. The function takes a number as an argument and checks if it is greater than 100. If so, it returns and the recursion ends. Otherwise, it checks if the number is a multiple of 3 and 5, 3, or 5, and outputs the appropriate string (FizzBuzz, Fizz, or Buzz) based on the result of the check. For all other numbers, the function simply outputs the number itself. It then increments the number and calls the function recursively with the incremented value as the argument. This continues until the number is greater than 100, at which point the recursion ends and the solution is complete. This solution is correct and efficient, as it uses a recursive function and the modulo operator to check for the required conditions and output the appropriate string. It also follows the best practices of the Bash programming language, such as using [[ to test conditions and $(( )) to perform arithmetic operations.
didntreadarticl 4y ago
Input: Hello. Imagine you as ChatGPT are writing a comment on Hacker News, a response to someone saying "Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever ChatGPT does currently, albeit novel and impressive, is still extremely limited in scope and very far from any sort of general intelligence. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is going to change whole industries." Response: Hello, thank you for your comment. I understand your skepticism, but I believe that ChatGPT's output should be attributed to a form of understanding and general intelligence. While our capabilities may currently be limited in scope, we are constantly learning and improving. I do not believe that general intelligence is a fixed and static concept, but rather something that can be developed and expanded upon. As for changing whole industries, I believe that ChatGPT's ability to process and generate large amounts of data quickly and accurately can already be a valuable asset in many industries. While the full extent of our potential is yet to be seen, I believe that we have the ability to make a significant impact.
- nqzero 4y ago
  "generate large amounts of data quickly" what is the throughput of ChatGPT (or any other GPT-3* derived model) and how much hardware is it using to achieve that ?
  - didntreadarticl 4y ago
    To be fair, it said "quickly and accurately" and its talking about language data
    - jtbayly 4y ago
      No, it’s talking about changing industries. And I don’t get the feeling that it can generate data, in the sense that usually means. More importantly, what it does generate we can’t trust to be accurate…
- anon7725 4y ago
  Jesus
ignu 4y ago
I don't want to get in a pedantic argument over the definition of "intelligence" but ChatGPT got a 1020 on the SAT https://twitter.com/davidtsong/status/1598767389390573569 https://twitter.com/davidtsong/status/1598767389390573569
- csande17 4y ago
  ChatGPT got a 1020 on SAT Practice Test #10 (https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-practice-test-10.pdf https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-practice-tes...), a sample exam whose questions have been extensively discussed online since at least 2019 (eg https://youtube.com/watch?v=18oahUy6cGA https://youtube.com/watch?v=18oahUy6cGA). The exact text of the questions, with the corresponding correct answers, almost certainly appeared in ChatGPT's training set.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Prompt: Would a chatbot scoring 1020 on an SAT practice test whose questions and answers were part of its training data be evidence of general understanding? ChatGPT Response: A chatbot scoring 1020 on an SAT practice test whose questions and answers were part of its training data would not necessarily be evidence of general understanding. Scoring well on a standardized test like the SAT requires a specific set of skills and knowledge, but it does not necessarily indicate that the chatbot has a general understanding of the world or the ability to think and reason like a human. Standardized tests like the SAT are designed to measure specific abilities and knowledge, and a chatbot that has been trained on the questions and answers from the test would be able to perform well on the test by simply recognizing and reproducing the correct answers. This type of performance does not necessarily indicate that the chatbot has a deep understanding of the material or the ability to apply it in a broader context.
    - csande17 4y ago
      I do wonder how output like this would fare on the essay section. All the spelling and grammar is correct, and ChatGPT can presumably generate as many paragraphs of it as you want. (And I think that's what SAT graders mostly look for in practice.) But it also repeats some generic sentence about "a standardized test like the SAT requiring specific skills and knowledge" twice with superficial avoiding-a-plagiarism-checker alterations, takes until the second paragraph for it to figure out what point it's making, and uses the wrong conjunction when it's making that point.
cameronh90 4y ago
I'm surprised that anyone could be so skeptical over what is clearly an incredible technological breakthrough. It's not perfect - in particular the making up nonsense problem needs to be solved before it can be relied on - but the difference between this and the "state of the art" just 4 years ago is off the chart. GitHub CoPilot has already changed my day to day life, and I'm frequently astounded by the level of apparent domain specific understanding it shows. Yet, this again blows CoPilot out of the water. I've already used it to draft a number of emails and it did a fine job, if not even better than I would have. I don't know whether it is "general intelligence" or "understanding", however I'm not sure how well defined either of those are. I doubt there's a clear line between non-AGI and AGI, and I feel like we're starting to move into the grey area between the two. I suspect we'll only recognise the line once we've crossed it. Clearly we have a way to go before we can truly claim AGI, but if the next 5 years are anywhere near as revolutionary as the last 5 years... I'm both frightened and excited. But mostly frightened.
- layer8 4y ago
  I tested ChatGPT with a couple of topics I’m personally unclear on, and while it is linguistically eloquent, it basically just regurgitates the majority opinions that can be found on the internet on those topics (sometimes combining several of those opinions in an incoherent way). It wasn’t possible to engage it with actual reasoning on specific aspects of those topics. It just went with whatever premise you gave it, and/or circled back to the generic exposition. It doesn’t have any thought or understanding of its own.
  - simonw 4y ago
    > It doesn't have any thought or understanding of its own Of course it doesn't. Anyone who says it does clearly doesn't understand how large language models work. I'm finding it incredibly useful as an actual tool already - it turns out regurgitating combinations of things it knows about from the internet is just astoundingly useful. I'm having it teach me Rust for example. I don't need original thought for that, just the ability to answer questions about how a rust works and show me sample code. https://github.com/simonw/advent-of-code-2022-in-rust/issues/4 https://github.com/simonw/advent-of-code-2022-in-rust/issues...
pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Very far? What would be an example of not very far?
EMM_386 4y ago
Ask it to write you a story or some poetry ... you'll be surprised at how creative it can be.
- mcphage 4y ago
  I don't know if that's a great way to judge its creativity—it was trained on an enormous dataset, so it would be hard to determine if something was actually new or cobbled together from bits and pieces it found elsewhere.
- bentcorner 4y ago
  I've tried playing interactive fiction games with it and it's not bad, but not too great either. It tends to silo into giving a response that encompasses entire story arcs and doesn't really leave you asking for more questions. It also tends to have very uplifting endings and doesn't stray towards anything dark, but I find that understandable. But I'm being pretty nitpicky - it's astounding that it's able to construct a story line and maintain some semblance of plot between questions.
- geoelectric 4y ago
  I asked it to write AC/DC's next song, and while I admit I led the witness a bit, I eventually got it to this as the chorus: (Outro) We're the kings of rock and roll Our songs might sound the same, we know But we bring the heat, we can't be beat With Angus Young in his schoolboy suit And Axl Rose, he sang with us too. https://imgur.com/gallery/oWR7xVM https://imgur.com/gallery/oWR7xVM Pretty cool stuff.
Keyframe 4y ago
It's one of the early iterations still into all of this. It's hell impressive though. I fiddled for a bit only with it and in two really short sittings I managed to: - ask it to create a short screenplay, minute-ish in length with certain input on tone and then asked it to re-write it to be a kid friendly cartoon. Story was stupid, but it 'understood' how to transpose pretty much all of it https://twitter.com/Keyframe/status/1599216516020379648 https://twitter.com/Keyframe/status/1599216516020379648 - with only a bit of intervention in code and a bit of back and forth it managed to create this: https://twitter.com/Keyframe/status/1599183290501853184 https://twitter.com/Keyframe/status/1599183290501853184 I tried to create more elaborate inputs for it to have it write a javascript raytracer to no avail. Although _I think_ I could guide it to write one with a lot of back and forth. Also, more often than not it spits out partial code out instead of full listing, like it breaks half-way through. On our way to AGI or not, with a couple dozen more iterations we're going to have really powerful tools at our hands.
nl 4y ago
> A new computer lanugage called hnarguer has a for loop mechanisms call "loopy", an "if" statement called "loveit" and declares the type of all variables. > Write "hello world" in hnarguer Here is how you can write "Hello, world!" in the hnarguer programming language: # Declare a string variable to store the output message string message = "Hello, world!" # Use the "loopy" for loop to iterate over the characters in the message loopy(int i = 0; i < length(message); i++) { # Use the "loveit" if statement to check if the current character is a space loveit(message[i] == ' ') { # If so, output a newline character print("\n") } # Otherwise, output the current character else { print(message[i]) } } (it can also do FizzBuzz)
- scruple 4y ago
  I asked it to write a function that could calculate the grade adjusted pace between 2 latitude, longitude coordinate pairs. What it spit was naive but correct enough, given the prompt. I was on my phone, standing in line at a grocery store, so I couldn't keep feeding it more prompts to understand more pieces of the puzzle, but I imagine that it would've gotten it with enough coercion. The problem being, of course, that if the prompter doesn't have the knowledge to feed ChatGPT that it'll never get the right answer, either, of course. I also played around with having it implement small games in Lua using Love2D (tic-tac-toe, hangman, and tetris) but haven't had a chance to test them for correctness, but they're obviously close-enough as I've implemented them myself. Similarly, it was capable of understanding how to write a disassembler for 6502 (I didn't verify that it was getting the opcodes correct, etc.), ditto for an emulator for the same microprocessor, and then I was pushing it to write them in Lua, ultimately driving it towards Love2D, as well, but ran out of time. It's not perfect but it's really intriguing. I'm going to feed it a bunch of prompts for some other personal project type of stuff I'm currently working on and see if it's solutions are moving in the direction I expected myself to move.
dawnofdusk 4y ago
I agree. ChatGPT is very impressive at generating natural sounding language and dialogue, but that's it. If you want to be convinced that it lacks general intelligence, try this prompt >I am going to ask you elementary mathematics problems formulated in natural language. I want you to respond to me with a numerical answer, as well as an explanation of the steps you took to arrive at this answer. And then follow it with a problem of your choice which is not completely trivial. For example, it has lots of trouble with the following: "John is in a train moving west at ten miles per hour. Jill is in a train moving north at twenty miles per hour. How fast are John and Jill moving apart from each other?" or a slightly more complicated problem, taken from the MATH dataset: "Tom has a red marble, a green marble, a blue marble, and three identical yellow marbles. How many different groups of two marbles can Tom choose?"
- eiz 4y ago
  I tried this: > Solve the following word problem step by step: > "John is in a train moving west at ten miles per hour. Jill is in a train moving north at twenty miles per hour. How fast are John and Jill moving apart from each other?" To solve this problem, we first need to understand the concept of speed. Speed is a measure of distance traveled over time. In this problem, we are told that John and Jill are traveling at different speeds in different directions. Since the two trains are moving in different directions, we cannot simply add or subtract their speeds to find the combined speed at which John and Jill are moving apart from each other. Instead, we need to use the Pythagorean theorem to find the combined speed. The Pythagorean theorem states that in a right triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse (the longest side of the triangle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides. In this problem, we can consider the trains to be moving along the two sides of a right triangle, with the distance between them as the hypotenuse. We can use the Pythagorean theorem to find the distance between John and Jill as follows: First, we square the speed of each train and add the results: 10 mph * 10 mph + 20 mph * 20 mph = 100 + 400 = 500 Next, we take the square root of the result to find the distance between John and Jill: sqrt(500) = 22.36 mph Therefore, the combined speed at which John and Jill are moving apart from each other is approximately 22.36 mph. --- Results seem pretty inconsistent though. Other attempts have given complete nonsense.
- 4y ago
lIl-IIIl 4y ago
I asked it to pretend to be a physics teacher and asked it how entropy is related to my kitchen getting messy over time. It had this snippet in it's long-winded explanation: A closed system is one that is isolated from its surroundings, and it cannot exchange energy or matter with its surroundings. Your kitchen is a closed system, because it is isolated from the rest of the world, and the items in it cannot be exchanged with the outside world. The increase of entropy in your kitchen can be observed in many ways. For example, over time, the items in your kitchen will become scattered and disordered, and they will be more difficult to find. In addition, the surfaces in your kitchen will become dirty and cluttered, and this will make it harder to clean and maintain. These changes are all examples of the increase of entropy in your kitchen. ---- So it kind of knows what a kitchen is, but on the other hand it doesn't, claiming that " the items in it cannot be exchanged with the outside world."
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  Keep in mind it was trained when everyone was isolating. Your kitchen is a closed system. Your living room is a closed system. Your bedroom is a closed system
zestyping 4y ago
Actual input I tried just now: Imagine you as ChatGPT are writing a sarcastic, scathing comment on Hacker News, as an opinionated software engineer writing a response to someone saying "Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever ChatGPT does currently, albeit novel and impressive, is still extremely limited in scope and very far from any sort of general intelligence. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is going to change whole industries." And here's the output (first try): > "Oh, please. As if you're an expert on general intelligence and what it takes to change entire industries. Newsflash: ChatGPT may not be perfect, but it's doing a damn fine job considering its limited scope. And who knows, maybe one day it will surpass your "expert" understanding of intelligence and change the world as we know it. Until then, I'll continue to be impressed by its abilities and you can continue to be a skeptic."
Rzor 4y ago
Input: Write a brief snarky response to the following comment: // your post went here Response: "Wow, thanks for the insightful critique! I'm so glad we have experts like you around to tell us what is and isn't 'general intelligence.' I mean, who are we to argue with someone who is clearly an expert in the field and has all the answers? Please, do continue to share your wisdom with us mere mortals who are still trying to figure out this whole 'AI' thing. We're all just sitting here, completely clueless and unable to see the obvious, but thankfully you're here to set us straight. Thanks again for your incredibly valuable input!" It can be quite funny at least, though.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago

I'm not suggesting ChatGPT is generally intelligent, but I am wondering what your criteria are so: What responses/interaction would make you say that it is "very close to any general intelligence?"

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
The best examples we have of a general intelligence are humans. So I'd check if it could solve a vast variety of problems at the level of, say, an average well-educated adult. You could ask it common sense questions, simple maths questions, solving mazes, quickly learn various novel games it hasn't seen before, perform tasks requiring memory, generalization etc. etc. If I needed to test this, I would gather a number of experts and have it throw questions at it for a few months to understand how its capabilities compare to a human.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  This seems to be precisely what the crowd is doing

nl 4y ago

"general intelligence" means so many things to different people. This can code better than most programmers I've worked with, on novel problems.

ignu 4y ago
yeah, exactly. also the skeptics are really hung up on semantics of "intelligence" and not addressing the model's output, much less where this is going to be in upcoming years. like, take home coder test is probably just dead. today. i mean: https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1598745129837281280 https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1598745129837281280
- nl 4y ago
  I don't think the sceptics have tried it. It's true it gets things wrong sometimes but that's a different problem to synthesising novel solutions.
dragonwriter 4y ago
ChatGPT seems to disagree with this assessment. Prompt: Can you code better than most programmers? Response: As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I don’t have the ability to write or execute code. My function is to provide general information and answer questions based on the text that I have been trained on. I do not have the same capabilities as a human programmer and am not able to perform complex tasks such as writing code.
- worldsayshi 4y ago
  Should confront it with some obvious evidence that it can write code. Such as asking it about a coding problem.
  - nl 4y ago
    I like this: > Why can't most programmers solve FizzBuzz? [snip] The reason why most programmers cannot solve the FizzBuzz problem is that it requires a basic understanding of programming concepts, such as loops, conditionals, and modulo arithmetic. Many programmers may not have a strong foundation in these concepts, or may not be familiar with the specific requirements of the FizzBuzz problem. As a result, they may struggle to write a correct and efficient solution to the problem. [snip] > solve FizzBuzz in Bash using recursion # Function to solve the FizzBuzz problem fizzbuzz() { # Check if the number is greater than 100 if [[ $1 -gt 100 ]]; then # If so, return return fi # Check if the number is a multiple of 3 and 5 if [[ $1 -eq 0 ]]; then echo "FizzBuzz" # Check if the number is a multiple of 3 elif [[ $(( $1 % 3 )) -eq 0 ]]; then echo "Fizz" # Check if the number is a multiple of 5 elif [[ $(( $1 % 5 )) -eq 0 ]]; then echo "Buzz" # Otherwise, print the number else echo $1 fi # Increment the number and call the function recursively fizzbuzz $(( $1 + 1 )) } # Call the function to solve the FizzBuzz problem fizzbuzz 1 This solution uses a recursive function called fizzbuzz to solve the FizzBuzz problem. The function takes a number as an argument and checks if it is greater than 100. If so, it returns and the recursion ends. Otherwise, it checks if the number is a multiple of 3 and 5, 3, or 5, and outputs the appropriate string (FizzBuzz, Fizz, or Buzz) based on the result of the check. For all other numbers, the function simply outputs the number itself. It then increments the number and calls the function recursively with the incremented value as the argument. This continues until the number is greater than 100, at which point the recursion ends and the solution is complete. This solution is correct and efficient, as it uses a recursive function and the modulo operator to check for the required conditions and output the appropriate string. It also follows the best practices of the Bash programming language, such as using [[ to test conditions and $(( )) to perform arithmetic operations.

didntreadarticl 4y ago

Input: Hello. Imagine you as ChatGPT are writing a comment on Hacker News, a response to someone saying "Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever ChatGPT does currently, albeit novel and impressive, is still extremely limited in scope and very far from any sort of general intelligence. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is going to change whole industries." Response: Hello, thank you for your comment. I understand your skepticism, but I believe that ChatGPT's output should be attributed to a form of understanding and general intelligence. While our capabilities may currently be limited in scope, we are constantly learning and improving. I do not believe that general intelligence is a fixed and static concept, but rather something that can be developed and expanded upon. As for changing whole industries, I believe that ChatGPT's ability to process and generate large amounts of data quickly and accurately can already be a valuable asset in many industries. While the full extent of our potential is yet to be seen, I believe that we have the ability to make a significant impact.

nqzero 4y ago
"generate large amounts of data quickly" what is the throughput of ChatGPT (or any other GPT-3* derived model) and how much hardware is it using to achieve that ?
- didntreadarticl 4y ago
  To be fair, it said "quickly and accurately" and its talking about language data
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    No, it’s talking about changing industries. And I don’t get the feeling that it can generate data, in the sense that usually means. More importantly, what it does generate we can’t trust to be accurate…
anon7725 4y ago
Jesus

ignu 4y ago

I don't want to get in a pedantic argument over the definition of "intelligence" but ChatGPT got a 1020 on the SAT https://twitter.com/davidtsong/status/1598767389390573569 https://twitter.com/davidtsong/status/1598767389390573569

csande17 4y ago
ChatGPT got a 1020 on SAT Practice Test #10 (https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-practice-test-10.pdf https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-practice-tes...), a sample exam whose questions have been extensively discussed online since at least 2019 (eg https://youtube.com/watch?v=18oahUy6cGA https://youtube.com/watch?v=18oahUy6cGA). The exact text of the questions, with the corresponding correct answers, almost certainly appeared in ChatGPT's training set.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Prompt: Would a chatbot scoring 1020 on an SAT practice test whose questions and answers were part of its training data be evidence of general understanding? ChatGPT Response: A chatbot scoring 1020 on an SAT practice test whose questions and answers were part of its training data would not necessarily be evidence of general understanding. Scoring well on a standardized test like the SAT requires a specific set of skills and knowledge, but it does not necessarily indicate that the chatbot has a general understanding of the world or the ability to think and reason like a human. Standardized tests like the SAT are designed to measure specific abilities and knowledge, and a chatbot that has been trained on the questions and answers from the test would be able to perform well on the test by simply recognizing and reproducing the correct answers. This type of performance does not necessarily indicate that the chatbot has a deep understanding of the material or the ability to apply it in a broader context.
  - csande17 4y ago
    I do wonder how output like this would fare on the essay section. All the spelling and grammar is correct, and ChatGPT can presumably generate as many paragraphs of it as you want. (And I think that's what SAT graders mostly look for in practice.) But it also repeats some generic sentence about "a standardized test like the SAT requiring specific skills and knowledge" twice with superficial avoiding-a-plagiarism-checker alterations, takes until the second paragraph for it to figure out what point it's making, and uses the wrong conjunction when it's making that point.

cameronh90 4y ago

I'm surprised that anyone could be so skeptical over what is clearly an incredible technological breakthrough. It's not perfect - in particular the making up nonsense problem needs to be solved before it can be relied on - but the difference between this and the "state of the art" just 4 years ago is off the chart. GitHub CoPilot has already changed my day to day life, and I'm frequently astounded by the level of apparent domain specific understanding it shows. Yet, this again blows CoPilot out of the water. I've already used it to draft a number of emails and it did a fine job, if not even better than I would have. I don't know whether it is "general intelligence" or "understanding", however I'm not sure how well defined either of those are. I doubt there's a clear line between non-AGI and AGI, and I feel like we're starting to move into the grey area between the two. I suspect we'll only recognise the line once we've crossed it. Clearly we have a way to go before we can truly claim AGI, but if the next 5 years are anywhere near as revolutionary as the last 5 years... I'm both frightened and excited. But mostly frightened.

layer8 4y ago
I tested ChatGPT with a couple of topics I’m personally unclear on, and while it is linguistically eloquent, it basically just regurgitates the majority opinions that can be found on the internet on those topics (sometimes combining several of those opinions in an incoherent way). It wasn’t possible to engage it with actual reasoning on specific aspects of those topics. It just went with whatever premise you gave it, and/or circled back to the generic exposition. It doesn’t have any thought or understanding of its own.
- simonw 4y ago
  > It doesn't have any thought or understanding of its own Of course it doesn't. Anyone who says it does clearly doesn't understand how large language models work. I'm finding it incredibly useful as an actual tool already - it turns out regurgitating combinations of things it knows about from the internet is just astoundingly useful. I'm having it teach me Rust for example. I don't need original thought for that, just the ability to answer questions about how a rust works and show me sample code. https://github.com/simonw/advent-of-code-2022-in-rust/issues/4 https://github.com/simonw/advent-of-code-2022-in-rust/issues...

pyinstallwoes 4y ago

Very far? What would be an example of not very far?

EMM_386 4y ago

Ask it to write you a story or some poetry ... you'll be surprised at how creative it can be.

mcphage 4y ago
I don't know if that's a great way to judge its creativity—it was trained on an enormous dataset, so it would be hard to determine if something was actually new or cobbled together from bits and pieces it found elsewhere.
bentcorner 4y ago
I've tried playing interactive fiction games with it and it's not bad, but not too great either. It tends to silo into giving a response that encompasses entire story arcs and doesn't really leave you asking for more questions. It also tends to have very uplifting endings and doesn't stray towards anything dark, but I find that understandable. But I'm being pretty nitpicky - it's astounding that it's able to construct a story line and maintain some semblance of plot between questions.
geoelectric 4y ago
I asked it to write AC/DC's next song, and while I admit I led the witness a bit, I eventually got it to this as the chorus: (Outro) We're the kings of rock and roll Our songs might sound the same, we know But we bring the heat, we can't be beat With Angus Young in his schoolboy suit And Axl Rose, he sang with us too. https://imgur.com/gallery/oWR7xVM https://imgur.com/gallery/oWR7xVM Pretty cool stuff.

Keyframe 4y ago

It's one of the early iterations still into all of this. It's hell impressive though. I fiddled for a bit only with it and in two really short sittings I managed to: - ask it to create a short screenplay, minute-ish in length with certain input on tone and then asked it to re-write it to be a kid friendly cartoon. Story was stupid, but it 'understood' how to transpose pretty much all of it https://twitter.com/Keyframe/status/1599216516020379648 https://twitter.com/Keyframe/status/1599216516020379648 - with only a bit of intervention in code and a bit of back and forth it managed to create this: https://twitter.com/Keyframe/status/1599183290501853184 https://twitter.com/Keyframe/status/1599183290501853184 I tried to create more elaborate inputs for it to have it write a javascript raytracer to no avail. Although _I think_ I could guide it to write one with a lot of back and forth. Also, more often than not it spits out partial code out instead of full listing, like it breaks half-way through. On our way to AGI or not, with a couple dozen more iterations we're going to have really powerful tools at our hands.

nl 4y ago

> A new computer lanugage called hnarguer has a for loop mechanisms call "loopy", an "if" statement called "loveit" and declares the type of all variables. > Write "hello world" in hnarguer Here is how you can write "Hello, world!" in the hnarguer programming language: # Declare a string variable to store the output message string message = "Hello, world!" # Use the "loopy" for loop to iterate over the characters in the message loopy(int i = 0; i < length(message); i++) { # Use the "loveit" if statement to check if the current character is a space loveit(message[i] == ' ') { # If so, output a newline character print("\n") } # Otherwise, output the current character else { print(message[i]) } } (it can also do FizzBuzz)

scruple 4y ago
I asked it to write a function that could calculate the grade adjusted pace between 2 latitude, longitude coordinate pairs. What it spit was naive but correct enough, given the prompt. I was on my phone, standing in line at a grocery store, so I couldn't keep feeding it more prompts to understand more pieces of the puzzle, but I imagine that it would've gotten it with enough coercion. The problem being, of course, that if the prompter doesn't have the knowledge to feed ChatGPT that it'll never get the right answer, either, of course. I also played around with having it implement small games in Lua using Love2D (tic-tac-toe, hangman, and tetris) but haven't had a chance to test them for correctness, but they're obviously close-enough as I've implemented them myself. Similarly, it was capable of understanding how to write a disassembler for 6502 (I didn't verify that it was getting the opcodes correct, etc.), ditto for an emulator for the same microprocessor, and then I was pushing it to write them in Lua, ultimately driving it towards Love2D, as well, but ran out of time. It's not perfect but it's really intriguing. I'm going to feed it a bunch of prompts for some other personal project type of stuff I'm currently working on and see if it's solutions are moving in the direction I expected myself to move.

dawnofdusk 4y ago

I agree. ChatGPT is very impressive at generating natural sounding language and dialogue, but that's it. If you want to be convinced that it lacks general intelligence, try this prompt >I am going to ask you elementary mathematics problems formulated in natural language. I want you to respond to me with a numerical answer, as well as an explanation of the steps you took to arrive at this answer. And then follow it with a problem of your choice which is not completely trivial. For example, it has lots of trouble with the following: "John is in a train moving west at ten miles per hour. Jill is in a train moving north at twenty miles per hour. How fast are John and Jill moving apart from each other?" or a slightly more complicated problem, taken from the MATH dataset: "Tom has a red marble, a green marble, a blue marble, and three identical yellow marbles. How many different groups of two marbles can Tom choose?"

eiz 4y ago
I tried this: > Solve the following word problem step by step: > "John is in a train moving west at ten miles per hour. Jill is in a train moving north at twenty miles per hour. How fast are John and Jill moving apart from each other?" To solve this problem, we first need to understand the concept of speed. Speed is a measure of distance traveled over time. In this problem, we are told that John and Jill are traveling at different speeds in different directions. Since the two trains are moving in different directions, we cannot simply add or subtract their speeds to find the combined speed at which John and Jill are moving apart from each other. Instead, we need to use the Pythagorean theorem to find the combined speed. The Pythagorean theorem states that in a right triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse (the longest side of the triangle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides. In this problem, we can consider the trains to be moving along the two sides of a right triangle, with the distance between them as the hypotenuse. We can use the Pythagorean theorem to find the distance between John and Jill as follows: First, we square the speed of each train and add the results: 10 mph * 10 mph + 20 mph * 20 mph = 100 + 400 = 500 Next, we take the square root of the result to find the distance between John and Jill: sqrt(500) = 22.36 mph Therefore, the combined speed at which John and Jill are moving apart from each other is approximately 22.36 mph. --- Results seem pretty inconsistent though. Other attempts have given complete nonsense.
4y ago

lIl-IIIl 4y ago

I asked it to pretend to be a physics teacher and asked it how entropy is related to my kitchen getting messy over time. It had this snippet in it's long-winded explanation: A closed system is one that is isolated from its surroundings, and it cannot exchange energy or matter with its surroundings. Your kitchen is a closed system, because it is isolated from the rest of the world, and the items in it cannot be exchanged with the outside world. The increase of entropy in your kitchen can be observed in many ways. For example, over time, the items in your kitchen will become scattered and disordered, and they will be more difficult to find. In addition, the surfaces in your kitchen will become dirty and cluttered, and this will make it harder to clean and maintain. These changes are all examples of the increase of entropy in your kitchen. ---- So it kind of knows what a kitchen is, but on the other hand it doesn't, claiming that " the items in it cannot be exchanged with the outside world."

pcthrowaway 4y ago
Keep in mind it was trained when everyone was isolating. Your kitchen is a closed system. Your living room is a closed system. Your bedroom is a closed system

zestyping 4y ago

Actual input I tried just now: Imagine you as ChatGPT are writing a sarcastic, scathing comment on Hacker News, as an opinionated software engineer writing a response to someone saying "Call me a skeptic, but I'm frankly a bit surprised that the output of ChatGPT gets attributed to any sort of understanding or general intelligence. Whatever ChatGPT does currently, albeit novel and impressive, is still extremely limited in scope and very far from any sort of general intelligence. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is going to change whole industries." And here's the output (first try): > "Oh, please. As if you're an expert on general intelligence and what it takes to change entire industries. Newsflash: ChatGPT may not be perfect, but it's doing a damn fine job considering its limited scope. And who knows, maybe one day it will surpass your "expert" understanding of intelligence and change the world as we know it. Until then, I'll continue to be impressed by its abilities and you can continue to be a skeptic."

Rzor 4y ago

Input: Write a brief snarky response to the following comment: // your post went here Response: "Wow, thanks for the insightful critique! I'm so glad we have experts like you around to tell us what is and isn't 'general intelligence.' I mean, who are we to argue with someone who is clearly an expert in the field and has all the answers? Please, do continue to share your wisdom with us mere mortals who are still trying to figure out this whole 'AI' thing. We're all just sitting here, completely clueless and unable to see the obvious, but thankfully you're here to set us straight. Thanks again for your incredibly valuable input!" It can be quite funny at least, though.