4 ms·
It's because ChatGPT's knowledge doesn't come through interaction with the world. Words mean things to us because they point to world interactions. I saw a demo
by jmugan 4y ago
It's because ChatGPT's knowledge doesn't come through interaction with the world. Words mean things to us because they point to world interactions. I saw a demo where ChatGPT could create a VM. It could be trained to interact directly with a VM, send commands to an interpreter. In this case, it would understand the response of the VM, although it wouldn't understand the design behind the VM, because humans did that based on interaction with the physical world.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago> It's because ChatGPT's knowledge doesn't come through interaction with the world. We don't interact with the world directly, either. All we have are signals mediated through our nervous system.
- jmugan 4y agoSure, but what happens when you touch a hot stove?
- Turing_Machine 4y agoThe built-in weights in your brain are modified to discourage you from doing that again?
- jmugan 4y agoRight. Those are tied via evolution to the dynamics of the physical world. We can simulate the physical world and learn from that, but there needs to be a there there. Language assumes the listener already has that understanding.
- jmugan 4y agoSorry, I meant to say that it hurts. That's the dynamics of the world I'm talking about.
- rafaelero 4y agoBased on this alleged limitation, can you list tasks that you think AI's won't ever be able to succeed at?
- jmugan 4y agoI think we will see AGI. But for the AI to be robust, it has to interact with the world, even if it is a simulated one. We need to build an AI that knows what a toddler knows before we can build one that understands wikipedia.
- rafaelero 4y agoHuman text does interact with the real world, so I don't see the limitation. Adding more modalities (vision, sound, etc.) probably will increase performance, and I think this is where we are heading, but it's silly to say that any one of these modalities are not grounded in reality. It's like saying humans can't understand reality because we can't see infrared rays. I mean, yeah?, but it's not the only way of making sense of reality.
- jmugan 4y agoLanguage is a representation medium for the world, it isn't the world itself. When we talk, we only say what can't be inferred because we assume the listener has a basic understanding of the dynamics of the world (e.g., if I push a table the things on it will also move). Having an AI watch youtube and enabling it to act out what it sees in simulation would give it that grounding. We are heading that direction. So, I agree ChatGPT is awesome. I don't believe it understands what it is saying, but it can if it trains by acting out what it sees on Youtube.
- boto3 4y agoIt did, actually. The model was trained with multiple rounds of reinforcement learning where human judges provided the feedback: first with full answers, and then with ranking of answers as most relevant. So the model in production is probably frozen, but before that it went through multiple rounds of interaction with the world.
- jmugan 4y agoThe reinforcement learning was on giving the right answer, not on interacting with the world. But there is movement in the right direction with https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/12/rt-1-robotics-transformer-for-real.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/12/rt-1-robotics-transformer-... and other RL stuff. (RT-1 isn't RL but there is other related stuff that is)
- boto3 4y agoOh, you meant interaction as a joint training with images, actions, feedback etc. That would be the next generation I guess. I am simply thinking of interaction here as similar to learning a language in a classroom. First the teacher provides sample questions/answers, then the teacher asks the students to come up with answers themselves, and tell them which one is better. The end result here is I think ChatGPT is quite good at answering questions and can pass as a human, especially if it's augmented with a fact database, so obviously wrong answers can be pruned.