3 ms·

I have paid for GTP-3 in the past. I think it’s incredible and likely worth it to many people. I wouldn’t currently pay for it because I don’t have a use case t

I have paid for GTP-3 in the past. I think it’s incredible and likely worth it to many people. I wouldn’t currently pay for it because I don’t have a use case that requires generating a lot of template code or communication, but I did, I would get out the credit card in a flash. ChatGTP isn’t AGI yet, but it’s incredibly powerful today. Even if GTP-4 wasn’t around the corner, I think the current state of LLMs would be able to power many new businesses and use cases over coming decades. Even that AI Seinfeld clone could be turned into a choose your own adventure streaming Netflix with enough refinement.

LoganDark 4y ago
It's GPT, not GTP. As for "isn't AGI yet": Language models will never be AGI. AGI requires internal thought and understanding. Some people have become convinced that this is the case by seeing the output of a language model, but there is no sufficient level of advancement that can turn a language model into an AGI, due to how they are currently implemented. If OpenAI was somehow able to produce an AGI at some point, it would no longer be a GPT, because GPT stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a type of language model. -Emily
- dougmwne 4y ago
  At least you know I am human. As for the rest, hard to say, because we really don’t know what puts the G in the I inside the coconut. Hard to measure internal thought and understanding. Hard for you to even prove I have it.
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    > At least you know I am human. ...we technically don't always assume that people we speak to on the internet identify human, since we don't ourselves, but we at least know that all host bodies (that we know of) are physically human. And we also know that all consciousnesses we've spoken with are "human" in nature as in "formed in a human brain". > Hard to measure internal thought and understanding. Hard for you to even prove I have it. Indeed, but brain scans exist to show mental activity in response to all sorts of things, including unprompted internal thought. You've heard of the EEG test for ADHD, right? You place someone in a room all by themselves, put some electrodes on their head, and leave them there for around 25 minutes. Then you measure brain activity to see if it looks... uhh, ADHD-y. I don't know what exactly they check for, but I'm pretty sure it's some certain type of uncontrollable mind wandering that people with ADHD suffer from. With a language model, you are computing the mathematical transforms that result in its output. And there's no evidence to show that there is any sort of internal thought that occurs there, especially since the entire thing is re-run from scratch for every token. Any "thought" or "understanding" can at best be encoded by mathematical weights in the layers, or something, but it's definitely not the same sort of understanding that biological humans have, or even most animals. The way they run is just fundamentally different. And obviously a mere product of consciousness such as an internet comment can be difficult to tell apart from the output of a hallucinating language model. :) -Emily
    - botro 4y ago
      But airplanes don't fly by flapping their wings.
      - LoganDark 4y ago
        Some of them do actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1z8YUs2FLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1z8YUs2FLc What is this an analogy for? -Emily
        dougmwne 4y ago
        Commenter is saying that it could be possible to get to the same outcome but through a different mechanism. So maybe if we do invent an AGI, it will be able to do all the things a human can do, but the underlying mechanism will not resemble or imitate what our brains are doing. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel)
        LoganDark 4y ago
        Ah, the black box theory - since AGIs are defined as being able to perform any task that a human can do, the only thing that matters is that they can perform that task just as good as (or better than) a human can, not that they are implemented the exact same way. Even in jobs requiring empathy and understanding, like (the ideal version of) customer service. When I think of AGI, I think of some sort of agent that can converse and interact in the same way that a human can, that has the same sort of curiosity, imagination, and internal thought that a human does. But, as it turns out, that's not actually required or even implied by the term "AGI" itself. -Emily
        dougmwne 4y ago
        Sure, what’s the difference between empathy and the behavior of empathy. We would say it’s how a person “feels”, a qualia. How to make highly processed sand experience qualia is an ongoing area of research. Maybe the sand already experiences qualia. Some people like to play music for their plants just in case.

LoganDark 4y ago

It's GPT, not GTP. As for "isn't AGI yet": Language models will never be AGI. AGI requires internal thought and understanding. Some people have become convinced that this is the case by seeing the output of a language model, but there is no sufficient level of advancement that can turn a language model into an AGI, due to how they are currently implemented. If OpenAI was somehow able to produce an AGI at some point, it would no longer be a GPT, because GPT stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a type of language model. -Emily

dougmwne 4y ago
At least you know I am human. As for the rest, hard to say, because we really don’t know what puts the G in the I inside the coconut. Hard to measure internal thought and understanding. Hard for you to even prove I have it.
- LoganDark 4y ago
  > At least you know I am human. ...we technically don't always assume that people we speak to on the internet identify human, since we don't ourselves, but we at least know that all host bodies (that we know of) are physically human. And we also know that all consciousnesses we've spoken with are "human" in nature as in "formed in a human brain". > Hard to measure internal thought and understanding. Hard for you to even prove I have it. Indeed, but brain scans exist to show mental activity in response to all sorts of things, including unprompted internal thought. You've heard of the EEG test for ADHD, right? You place someone in a room all by themselves, put some electrodes on their head, and leave them there for around 25 minutes. Then you measure brain activity to see if it looks... uhh, ADHD-y. I don't know what exactly they check for, but I'm pretty sure it's some certain type of uncontrollable mind wandering that people with ADHD suffer from. With a language model, you are computing the mathematical transforms that result in its output. And there's no evidence to show that there is any sort of internal thought that occurs there, especially since the entire thing is re-run from scratch for every token. Any "thought" or "understanding" can at best be encoded by mathematical weights in the layers, or something, but it's definitely not the same sort of understanding that biological humans have, or even most animals. The way they run is just fundamentally different. And obviously a mere product of consciousness such as an internet comment can be difficult to tell apart from the output of a hallucinating language model. :) -Emily
  - botro 4y ago
    But airplanes don't fly by flapping their wings.
    - LoganDark 4y ago
      Some of them do actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1z8YUs2FLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1z8YUs2FLc What is this an analogy for? -Emily
      - dougmwne 4y ago
        Commenter is saying that it could be possible to get to the same outcome but through a different mechanism. So maybe if we do invent an AGI, it will be able to do all the things a human can do, but the underlying mechanism will not resemble or imitate what our brains are doing. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel)
        LoganDark 4y ago
        Ah, the black box theory - since AGIs are defined as being able to perform any task that a human can do, the only thing that matters is that they can perform that task just as good as (or better than) a human can, not that they are implemented the exact same way. Even in jobs requiring empathy and understanding, like (the ideal version of) customer service. When I think of AGI, I think of some sort of agent that can converse and interact in the same way that a human can, that has the same sort of curiosity, imagination, and internal thought that a human does. But, as it turns out, that's not actually required or even implied by the term "AGI" itself. -Emily
        dougmwne 4y ago
        Sure, what’s the difference between empathy and the behavior of empathy. We would say it’s how a person “feels”, a qualia. How to make highly processed sand experience qualia is an ongoing area of research. Maybe the sand already experiences qualia. Some people like to play music for their plants just in case.