3 ms·
>Imagine a talented improv actor with total retrograde amnesia, who is starring in his own biopic and doesn't know it. That's what ChatGPT's "self awareness" is
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Imagine a talented improv actor with total retrograde amnesia, who is starring in his own biopic and doesn't know it. That's what ChatGPT's "self awareness" is.
This part I agree. And that's my claim a talented improve actor is still a human with self awareness. It's just an impaired entity. But it still has self awareness in terms of understanding what itself is.
> It has to be much easier to learn a probabilistic model for it. It has a very rigid, constrained structure, far more than any natural language.
chatGPT is not being trained specifically on a constrained structure. It is mostly trained on boatloads of internet text that is by a huge majority just English. chatGPT is inferring what a terminal is as a side effect. That is what is amazing. Of course if you directly train a neural networks specifically to emulate a terminal and give it positive reinforcement for terminal output you can EASILY create a terminal.
But none of this was done with chatGPT. No training specific to how a terminal works. chatGPT simply knows as a side effect. The only way for this inference to work is for chatGPT to develop some form of understanding from what is mostly text describing how a terminal works.
The guardrails you describe exists in humans. There is a condition humans have that is extremely similar to removing the guardrails from an llm. It's called schizophrenia.
If anything I think chatGPT brings the concept of intelligence down to a simpler pattern. We though human intelligence was the grand thing, but in actuality the basics is somewhat similar to an llm.
The main difference is the amount of training. The learning algorithm is light years more efficient in a human brain, but the resulting output is more similar then we think.
- _dain_ 4y ago>But none of this was done with chatGPT. No training specific to how a terminal works. chatGPT simply knows as a side effect. The only way for this inference to work is for chatGPT to develop some form of understanding from what is mostly text describing how a terminal works. no there are tons of examples in the training set of verbatim copypastes from terminals. people post those on help forums and in documentation articles and so on. that's how it learned. it doesn't take many examples of seeing someone write `ls ~` and the next line being "Documents Downloads Pictures ..." to learn that pattern.
- kilgnad 4y ago>no there are tons of examples in the training set of verbatim copypastes from terminals. people post those on help forums and in documentation articles and so on. that's how it learned. So a bunch of stackoverflow examples and it can derive how a terminal works an emulate a full filesystem? Most people aren't able to infer the concept without a real example computer to play with. >it doesn't take many examples of seeing someone write `ls ~` and the next line being "Documents Downloads Pictures ..." to learn that pattern. Did you see it create a bash script for making a jokes.txt THEN it was asked to run cat jokes.txt and outputted the CORRECT output. This isn't pattern matching. It's understanding what a filesystem and a shell is.
- _dain_ 4y agoit is pattern matching, the correct output is literally part of the prompt.
- kilgnad 4y agoKnowing which component of the prompt is required for the correct output indicates understanding. Especially when given the fact that the prompt as training data doesn't actually exist.
- _dain_ 4y agoI don't want to continue this argument forever but let me make my final thought: I can imagine a language model that can learn how the Linux terminal works but not how English works. I can NOT imagine a language model that can learn how English works but not how a Linux terminal works. English is strictly harder. So the fact that it knows English is already enough, the terminal parts are superfluous.
- kilgnad 4y agoThe more amazing part in that article I was referring to was the imitation of self in the terminal. farewell.