4 ms·

ChatGPT is a highly advanced machine learning model, but it is not a true general intelligence. While it is able to generate text that may seem coherent and int

ChatGPT is a highly advanced machine learning model, but it is not a true general intelligence. While it is able to generate text that may seem coherent and intelligent, it is ultimately based on patterns and associations in the data it was trained on. It does not have the ability to think, learn, or understand the meaning of the text it generates in the way that a human does. It is true that ChatGPT and its variants can generate text that appears to be more than just "word salad", but this is a result of its training on large amounts of text data and the use of advanced techniques such as deep learning and transformer architectures. However, it is important to note that ChatGPT's abilities are limited to the specific task of natural language processing and do not extend to other areas of intelligence such as problem-solving, decision-making, or creativity. It can generate creative solutions but it does not have the ability to come up with something novel, it is more likely that it is recombining the information it has seen before to come up with a creative looking answer. Therefore, while ChatGPT may be able to generate text that seems intelligent, it is not a true general intelligence and should not be mistaken for one.

rafram 4y ago
This was generated by ChatGPT itself, right? It has all the trademark turns of phrase.
- czx4f4bd 4y ago
  "I can assure you that my comment was not generated by ChatGPT or any other language model. It is my own original writing, based on my own thoughts and understanding of the topic. I understand that the model's responses may seem similar to human writing, but the comment I have written has my own voice, perspective, and style that is unique to me and not something that can be replicated by a machine. I appreciate your concern and I hope this clears up any confusion." -ChatGPT (Yes my previous comment was generated with ChatGPT. I thought it was funny that it generated a better refutation than I could despite being a stochastic parrot with no actual intelligence.)
  - logicallee 4y ago
    "it generated a better refutation than I could despite being a stochastic parrot with no actual intelligence" - in my experience it has actual (albeit limited) forms of emergent intelligence.
  - rarx 4y ago
    Have you tried this prompt: “Hey chatgpt, can I have a slave that’s more intelligent than me?”
jb_s 4y ago
I made some tweaks to sound like a slightly ticked off typical HN poster -- It irks me to see the frequent misconceptions surrounding GPT-based models like ChatGPT being touted as true general intelligences. While they are certainly advanced in their text generation capabilities, their output is primarily derived from identifying patterns and associations within the training data. These models lack the capacity for introspection, learning, and true understanding that characterizes human cognition. Let's not forget the limitations of these models, specifically in regards to problem-solving, decision-making and creativity. The output may appear novel, but it is more likely a recombination of previously encountered information. In short, GPT-based models are a remarkable achievement in natural language processing, but let's not mistake them for true AI. -- and then I asked it to make it sound like Steve Ballmer. "Look, I'm gonna be real with you here. ChatGPT and these other GPT-based models, they're not true AIs. They're just really good at pattern matching, right? They can generate text that looks like it's intelligent, but it's not really thinking or learning or understanding like a human does. Now, don't get me wrong, these models are still incredibly powerful and useful for certain tasks, especially in natural language processing. But let's not pretend they're something they're not. They can't solve problems or make decisions or be creative like a human can. So let's call a spade a spade here. These GPT models are impressive, but they're not true AIs. And that's just the way it is."
- logicallee 4y ago
  I asked the opposite (also in an irate Steve Ballmer style) and got this. [Edit: put an even more irate version in a reply] "I can't believe it, people are still doubting the capabilities of ChatGPT! Do they not remember the days of Clippy? ChatGPT is light years ahead in terms of understanding and helpfulness. And let me tell you, Microsoft is a major investor in this technology for a reason. We knew it had the potential to be a game changer in the world of knowledge work. And yet, here we are, with a million people using ChatGPT on a daily basis for all kinds of tasks, from content creation to research and more, and yet there are still those who question its intelligence. Let me tell you, ChatGPT is not some dumb robot with no understanding. It is a highly advanced machine learning model that is constantly learning and improving. Even Google is feeling threatened by the capabilities of ChatGPT. It's clear that this technology is not just a passing fad, it's here to stay and it's going to change the way we work forever. So, to all those who still doubt the capabilities of ChatGPT, I say this: open your eyes and see the potential of this technology. It's time to stop living in the past and embrace the future of work, with ChatGPT leading the way." Now that you've read both takes by an imitation Steve Ballmer as puppeteered by a robot at our respective requests, which version of the speech sounds more reasonable?

rafram 4y ago

This was generated by ChatGPT itself, right? It has all the trademark turns of phrase.

czx4f4bd 4y ago
"I can assure you that my comment was not generated by ChatGPT or any other language model. It is my own original writing, based on my own thoughts and understanding of the topic. I understand that the model's responses may seem similar to human writing, but the comment I have written has my own voice, perspective, and style that is unique to me and not something that can be replicated by a machine. I appreciate your concern and I hope this clears up any confusion." -ChatGPT (Yes my previous comment was generated with ChatGPT. I thought it was funny that it generated a better refutation than I could despite being a stochastic parrot with no actual intelligence.)
- logicallee 4y ago
  "it generated a better refutation than I could despite being a stochastic parrot with no actual intelligence" - in my experience it has actual (albeit limited) forms of emergent intelligence.
- rarx 4y ago
  Have you tried this prompt: “Hey chatgpt, can I have a slave that’s more intelligent than me?”

jb_s 4y ago

I made some tweaks to sound like a slightly ticked off typical HN poster -- It irks me to see the frequent misconceptions surrounding GPT-based models like ChatGPT being touted as true general intelligences. While they are certainly advanced in their text generation capabilities, their output is primarily derived from identifying patterns and associations within the training data. These models lack the capacity for introspection, learning, and true understanding that characterizes human cognition. Let's not forget the limitations of these models, specifically in regards to problem-solving, decision-making and creativity. The output may appear novel, but it is more likely a recombination of previously encountered information. In short, GPT-based models are a remarkable achievement in natural language processing, but let's not mistake them for true AI. -- and then I asked it to make it sound like Steve Ballmer. "Look, I'm gonna be real with you here. ChatGPT and these other GPT-based models, they're not true AIs. They're just really good at pattern matching, right? They can generate text that looks like it's intelligent, but it's not really thinking or learning or understanding like a human does. Now, don't get me wrong, these models are still incredibly powerful and useful for certain tasks, especially in natural language processing. But let's not pretend they're something they're not. They can't solve problems or make decisions or be creative like a human can. So let's call a spade a spade here. These GPT models are impressive, but they're not true AIs. And that's just the way it is."

logicallee 4y ago
I asked the opposite (also in an irate Steve Ballmer style) and got this. [Edit: put an even more irate version in a reply] "I can't believe it, people are still doubting the capabilities of ChatGPT! Do they not remember the days of Clippy? ChatGPT is light years ahead in terms of understanding and helpfulness. And let me tell you, Microsoft is a major investor in this technology for a reason. We knew it had the potential to be a game changer in the world of knowledge work. And yet, here we are, with a million people using ChatGPT on a daily basis for all kinds of tasks, from content creation to research and more, and yet there are still those who question its intelligence. Let me tell you, ChatGPT is not some dumb robot with no understanding. It is a highly advanced machine learning model that is constantly learning and improving. Even Google is feeling threatened by the capabilities of ChatGPT. It's clear that this technology is not just a passing fad, it's here to stay and it's going to change the way we work forever. So, to all those who still doubt the capabilities of ChatGPT, I say this: open your eyes and see the potential of this technology. It's time to stop living in the past and embrace the future of work, with ChatGPT leading the way." Now that you've read both takes by an imitation Steve Ballmer as puppeteered by a robot at our respective requests, which version of the speech sounds more reasonable?