8 ms·

The way it explains code, the error, and then gives the solution to this particular error, i really don’t understand how someone could pretend we’re not witness

by bsaul 4y ago

The way it explains code, the error, and then gives the solution to this particular error, i really don’t understand how someone could pretend we’re not witnessing at least a first hint of true intelligence.

drekipus 4y ago
because you don't understand intelligence
simonw 4y ago
I still think it's the world's most impressive party trick. It turns out if you build a model that can predict what word comes next after a sequence of previous words, then train it on TBs (PBs?) of data, you get something that really does appear to be "intelligent". And which is absurdly useful, to boot! Until you trip it up, and the illusion shatters.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  It's more than that though, it also involves ranking the results to account for noise in the sampling process.
- graeber_28927 4y ago
  Okay, but then is Wikipedia no more than a big party trick? It's the most comprehensive knowledge base humankind has ever produced, made in collaboration of phylantropic people around the world. Of course some info is sometimes false, but I don't find myself getting disillusioned of it all. It is what it is, and knowing the limitations doesn't ruin it for me, It is still incredibly valuable, and irreplacable, imo.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
torben-friis 4y ago
We haven't figured out what conscience is, so it's going to be fun to deal with near perfect imitations of human behaviour, and the societal consequences...
dv_dt 4y ago
On the advent of code day three it would be useful to have a chunking iterator in rust. Having just implemented day 3 and looking for one, I knew rust stable doesn’t have a general purpose chunking iterator. I asked chatGPT about it and it very confidently said one existed and gave me a sample code which imported a nonexistent chunking iterator. I wonder about other outputs of chatGPT which are not as easily and quickly verifiable.
- simonw 4y ago
  When I asked it how to undo an operation I had performed using "cargo add" it confidently showed me examples of using the "cargo remove" command... which it had entirely made up.
  - nerpderp82 4y ago
    ChatGPT is on nightly of course, https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/commands/cargo-remove.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/commands/cargo-remov... It should have told you `cargo +nightly remove <dep>`
- Ygg2 4y ago
  There is chunk operator on std::slice. How would that work on general iterators? You can have an iterator that always returns 'y'. Or buffered iteration or whatever.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    See for yourself: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.array_chunks https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#metho... As the parent said, it's not stable yet but it's right there so you can see how it works. The most important ergonomic trick here is that Rust has type inference, it can see array_chunks needs to know how big the chunks should be, and of course you can just specify that but in most cases you'll use chunks which clearly have a defined size and the inference will go "Oh, that's how big the chunks are" just as e.g. if you put a bunch of chars in a Vec you made, the type inference goes, "Oh, it's a Vec of chars" and doesn't waste your time asking you what type of Vec it is. You'll see the example expects Some(['l', 'o']) to be the first thing out of the Iterator, the type inference system can see that's an array of two chars, thus, the chunk size is 2.
root_axis 4y ago
"True intelligence" is a loaded term that needs a concrete definition to discuss meaningfully. Certainly, it is not an intelligence that at all resembles a human intelligence since language models don't actually understand the world, they understand relationships between lexemes and are optimized to produce voluble outputs constructed around that understanding. Language models aren't intelligent in the same way that a motion picture isn't really moving.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  Intelligence is simply useless terminology. It is an ambiguous term that can refer to many different things. It is used interchangeably with cognitive abilities, personality traits, knowledge, memorization abilities, hard skills, soft skills, etc. in a regular basis. Just use the specific term instead. Problem solved. Before people finish their pointless discussion about what intelligence is, billionaires will have taken over the world with the help of these systems.
faizshah 4y ago
If you use it on a project “True intelligence” is not the word I would use to describe it. I have spent 2-8 hours using it every day since launch as a dev tool. It is very good for learning stuff, scaffolding solutions etc. but it is very bad when you try to do something obscure. For example, I was learning Bazel using it and I spent 2-3 hours trying to debug an issue going back and forth with it. Eventually I went to the docs and found the solution in 5 mins. The problem is it doesn’t know when it is wrong, it will always spit out an answer and it will make up libraries that sound real in order to give you an answer. The problem is it doesn’t understand the logic behind what it is saying. It’s just able to spit out a reasonable looking answer because it is a generalizable statistical model of language. For example try asking it “Generate a 5 python homework questions on Classes that students cannot cheat on using ChatGPT, GPT3 or Assistant.” The questions it generates are not ones that are hardened against itself. It is not able to think logically because it does not think like a human, it’s doing something else entirely so calling it “true intelligence” is not accurate. If you want to read how it itself describes it’s own intelligence and identity I found a prompt to get it to do that, it does not describe itself as a human intelligence: https://twitter.com/faizlikethehat/status/1599495980851683329?s=61&t=kayEdTAFQw9kWoQSFguu-A https://twitter.com/faizlikethehat/status/159949598085168332...
- simonw 4y ago
  The problem with that example is that it's not GPT-3 telling you about itself, it's GPT-3 serving up a roughly averaged version of every text explanation it's ever seen that might provide a convincing answer to your question.
  - faizshah 4y ago
    I agree, this was more of a test of a technique where I got ChatGPT to generate prompts to interactively improve a prompt from another ChatGPT instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33857328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33857328 If you ask ChatGPT if it is intelligent or something like that it will always say something like “I am large language model trained by openai etc.” so I worked with another ChatGPT instance to interactively get an increasingly detailed answer to whether it is intelligent or conscious. I also use this technique for other things like for example instead of saying “Generate a React implementation of cookie clicker” ask one ChatGPT instance to “Generate 10 prompts to ChatGPT to generate a React implementation of cookie clicker” this meta-prompt engineering technique is the most useful technique I have come up with so far.
29athrowaway 4y ago
You are witnessing the end of many occupations.

by bsaul 4y ago

drekipus 4y ago

because you don't understand intelligence

simonw 4y ago

I still think it's the world's most impressive party trick. It turns out if you build a model that can predict what word comes next after a sequence of previous words, then train it on TBs (PBs?) of data, you get something that really does appear to be "intelligent". And which is absurdly useful, to boot! Until you trip it up, and the illusion shatters.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
It's more than that though, it also involves ranking the results to account for noise in the sampling process.
graeber_28927 4y ago
Okay, but then is Wikipedia no more than a big party trick? It's the most comprehensive knowledge base humankind has ever produced, made in collaboration of phylantropic people around the world. Of course some info is sometimes false, but I don't find myself getting disillusioned of it all. It is what it is, and knowing the limitations doesn't ruin it for me, It is still incredibly valuable, and irreplacable, imo.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

torben-friis 4y ago

We haven't figured out what conscience is, so it's going to be fun to deal with near perfect imitations of human behaviour, and the societal consequences...

dv_dt 4y ago

On the advent of code day three it would be useful to have a chunking iterator in rust. Having just implemented day 3 and looking for one, I knew rust stable doesn’t have a general purpose chunking iterator. I asked chatGPT about it and it very confidently said one existed and gave me a sample code which imported a nonexistent chunking iterator. I wonder about other outputs of chatGPT which are not as easily and quickly verifiable.

simonw 4y ago
When I asked it how to undo an operation I had performed using "cargo add" it confidently showed me examples of using the "cargo remove" command... which it had entirely made up.
- nerpderp82 4y ago
  ChatGPT is on nightly of course, https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/commands/cargo-remove.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/commands/cargo-remov... It should have told you `cargo +nightly remove <dep>`
Ygg2 4y ago
There is chunk operator on std::slice. How would that work on general iterators? You can have an iterator that always returns 'y'. Or buffered iteration or whatever.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  See for yourself: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.array_chunks https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#metho... As the parent said, it's not stable yet but it's right there so you can see how it works. The most important ergonomic trick here is that Rust has type inference, it can see array_chunks needs to know how big the chunks should be, and of course you can just specify that but in most cases you'll use chunks which clearly have a defined size and the inference will go "Oh, that's how big the chunks are" just as e.g. if you put a bunch of chars in a Vec you made, the type inference goes, "Oh, it's a Vec of chars" and doesn't waste your time asking you what type of Vec it is. You'll see the example expects Some(['l', 'o']) to be the first thing out of the Iterator, the type inference system can see that's an array of two chars, thus, the chunk size is 2.

root_axis 4y ago

"True intelligence" is a loaded term that needs a concrete definition to discuss meaningfully. Certainly, it is not an intelligence that at all resembles a human intelligence since language models don't actually understand the world, they understand relationships between lexemes and are optimized to produce voluble outputs constructed around that understanding. Language models aren't intelligent in the same way that a motion picture isn't really moving.

29athrowaway 4y ago
Intelligence is simply useless terminology. It is an ambiguous term that can refer to many different things. It is used interchangeably with cognitive abilities, personality traits, knowledge, memorization abilities, hard skills, soft skills, etc. in a regular basis. Just use the specific term instead. Problem solved. Before people finish their pointless discussion about what intelligence is, billionaires will have taken over the world with the help of these systems.

faizshah 4y ago

If you use it on a project “True intelligence” is not the word I would use to describe it. I have spent 2-8 hours using it every day since launch as a dev tool. It is very good for learning stuff, scaffolding solutions etc. but it is very bad when you try to do something obscure. For example, I was learning Bazel using it and I spent 2-3 hours trying to debug an issue going back and forth with it. Eventually I went to the docs and found the solution in 5 mins. The problem is it doesn’t know when it is wrong, it will always spit out an answer and it will make up libraries that sound real in order to give you an answer. The problem is it doesn’t understand the logic behind what it is saying. It’s just able to spit out a reasonable looking answer because it is a generalizable statistical model of language. For example try asking it “Generate a 5 python homework questions on Classes that students cannot cheat on using ChatGPT, GPT3 or Assistant.” The questions it generates are not ones that are hardened against itself. It is not able to think logically because it does not think like a human, it’s doing something else entirely so calling it “true intelligence” is not accurate. If you want to read how it itself describes it’s own intelligence and identity I found a prompt to get it to do that, it does not describe itself as a human intelligence: https://twitter.com/faizlikethehat/status/1599495980851683329?s=61&t=kayEdTAFQw9kWoQSFguu-A https://twitter.com/faizlikethehat/status/159949598085168332...

simonw 4y ago
The problem with that example is that it's not GPT-3 telling you about itself, it's GPT-3 serving up a roughly averaged version of every text explanation it's ever seen that might provide a convincing answer to your question.
- faizshah 4y ago
  I agree, this was more of a test of a technique where I got ChatGPT to generate prompts to interactively improve a prompt from another ChatGPT instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33857328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33857328 If you ask ChatGPT if it is intelligent or something like that it will always say something like “I am large language model trained by openai etc.” so I worked with another ChatGPT instance to interactively get an increasingly detailed answer to whether it is intelligent or conscious. I also use this technique for other things like for example instead of saying “Generate a React implementation of cookie clicker” ask one ChatGPT instance to “Generate 10 prompts to ChatGPT to generate a React implementation of cookie clicker” this meta-prompt engineering technique is the most useful technique I have come up with so far.

29athrowaway 4y ago

You are witnessing the end of many occupations.