4 ms·

"The plain fact is, ChatGPT is demonstrating a major step forward towards artificial general intelligence. It can't perfectly explain jokes, especially puns, bu

by wankle 4y ago

"The plain fact is, ChatGPT is demonstrating a major step forward towards artificial general intelligence. It can't perfectly explain jokes, especially puns, but it's pretty darned close." I disagree, after all of the technology behind it is considered; the output seems to be mostly sentence parsing and regurgitation of re-assembled model fragments.

mabbo 4y ago
Sure, but can you really say that a lot of people aren't doing just the same thing? (I only half joke)
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Experience with ChatGPT hopefully will make us more aware of confident nonsense, even when it comes from humans.
- mewpmewp2 4y ago
  I think ChatGPT may be sort of intuition, gut feel type of thing that people will get a quick feeling based on input, but it won't be something that is able to do novel thought or critical thinking.
dwaltrip 4y ago
We don't have a good understanding of how human intelligence works, so it doesn't seem reasonable to critique AI by only looking at the implementation details.
falcor84 4y ago
>after all of the technology behind it is considered This reminds me of Sagan's “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe”. If we consider any achievement based on what went into it, this is the only reasonable halting condition.
- mewpmewp2 4y ago
  I think the issue is, that this approach will lead to limitations. And with ChatGPT it's unclear to me whether there's any party tricks going on as well. With jokes it could be algorithmic thing that will try to parse all of it, and it would not be a very impressive algorithm. You just bruteforce weighted connections based on inputs to find what might match the best. I don't know if it was able to recognise how pun jokes work by themselves or someone programmed it the idea of puns. Is there logic in the code that says that it should look for multiple meanings if it's a joke or was it able to do that just from training? If there's logic, then it just becomes bruteforcing when it knows that the current context is a "Joke", I should look for whether it could be a "pun" joke, or it could be a "unexpected ending" type of joke, and when I think it matches pun the best I would check all words to see which ones have double meaning. I guess better question is. If you don't tell it, that something is a joke, would it be able to realise there's something funny or a pun in something someone said, without anyone instructing it to look out for that.

by wankle 4y ago

mabbo 4y ago

Sure, but can you really say that a lot of people aren't doing just the same thing? (I only half joke)

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Experience with ChatGPT hopefully will make us more aware of confident nonsense, even when it comes from humans.
mewpmewp2 4y ago
I think ChatGPT may be sort of intuition, gut feel type of thing that people will get a quick feeling based on input, but it won't be something that is able to do novel thought or critical thinking.

dwaltrip 4y ago

We don't have a good understanding of how human intelligence works, so it doesn't seem reasonable to critique AI by only looking at the implementation details.

falcor84 4y ago

>after all of the technology behind it is considered This reminds me of Sagan's “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe”. If we consider any achievement based on what went into it, this is the only reasonable halting condition.

mewpmewp2 4y ago
I think the issue is, that this approach will lead to limitations. And with ChatGPT it's unclear to me whether there's any party tricks going on as well. With jokes it could be algorithmic thing that will try to parse all of it, and it would not be a very impressive algorithm. You just bruteforce weighted connections based on inputs to find what might match the best. I don't know if it was able to recognise how pun jokes work by themselves or someone programmed it the idea of puns. Is there logic in the code that says that it should look for multiple meanings if it's a joke or was it able to do that just from training? If there's logic, then it just becomes bruteforcing when it knows that the current context is a "Joke", I should look for whether it could be a "pun" joke, or it could be a "unexpected ending" type of joke, and when I think it matches pun the best I would check all words to see which ones have double meaning. I guess better question is. If you don't tell it, that something is a joke, would it be able to realise there's something funny or a pun in something someone said, without anyone instructing it to look out for that.