3 ms·
> has little to do with the quality of the output. Non-snarky question: What else can you judge by? Isn't any alternative just putting more precise conditions
by jonahx 4y ago
> has little to do with the quality of the output.
Non-snarky question: What else can you judge by? Isn't any alternative just putting more precise conditions on the output?
With ChatGPT, it's still easy enough to see it's mistakes, and its attempts at fiction and poetry, impressive as they are, are still clumsy to a trained eye, relative to expert human work. But what if they weren't? What happens when they're indistinguishable?
- Barrin92 4y ago>Non-snarky question: What else can you judge by? its architecure. A child is a living and autonomous agent. It has (or develops) meta cognition, an awareness of its own mental state (and by extension use of language). These models don't have the capacity to do this even in theory given that they're static and pretrained. When you ask ChatGPT what it feels like to speak, there isn't some neural activity within the model, it has no model of itself that it actively inspects, it doesn't learn while it converses with you, it just tells you what someone wrote on Quora two years ago. >What happens when they're indistinguishable? Then the system is likely going to look a lot different than it does now because these aspects of cognition seem pretty important when you want something that is genuinely human-like rather than just mimicry or memorization.
- jonahx 4y agoI take your point. And agree there is still a huge gulf. > Then the system is likely going to look a lot different than it does now I think I agree with this too, but to challenge the idea: I would never have thought "a fancy autocomplete architecture" could give rise to something as sophisticated as ChatGPT, its flaws notwithstanding. So I don't feel so confident that further iterations of the idea, or iterations that involve other architectures that are "still obviously fake" won't give rise to results that far more terrifyingly convincing than ChatGPT. Since we don't really understand these architectures, human or machine, I don't see how that can be used as the criteria. Ever more find-grained versions of "output" seem like the only ground truth. The goal posts can keep moving... they can do language but can't implement robots with proper voice or facial expressions, etc. But in theory if there were no more goal posts left, I feel like the architecture argument would ring hollow.
- thfuran 4y agoThe essay is the words that comprise it, not the means by which they were produced. I don't need to write it out by hand for it to be real. My printer can produce a real essay. A photocopier can produce a real essay. ChatGPT can produce a real essay, but it's just probably going to be a bit shit.
- richardw 4y agoVery hard question to really answer. If Einstein said the sentences “are you sure? think about it”, you might spend years pondering what he meant. If GPT does you’ll ignore it. Same output but the context plus content will change what you do. Same with a painting. If an old master draws a wireframe of a dog, people would bid it up at auction and wonder what he meant. If your kid or AI do, no money might change hands. Same output, different context. So you can’t just use the output, surely?
- richardw 4y agoMaybe the answer is a repeated game over time. We might learn the deep wisdom/artistry inherent in the model, or we might learn its limitations. Einstein didn’t arrive and emit one sentence. Dali didn’t just draw once picture. It’s hard to judge an AI from one output.