5 ms·

This take is widely prevalent in every single ChatGPT discussion. I'll quote myself for discussion for a previous article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id

This take is widely prevalent in every single ChatGPT discussion. I'll quote myself for discussion for a previous article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746348 > I've find two groups of people on this subject, first one has taken a graduate level stat course and/or ML course, and may have work experience in machine learning/data science. The latter camp is more numerous and did not do those things. > The latter group are far more hyped about ChatGPT et al, despite explanation by the first group. > Don't get me wrong, ChatGPT is very exciting, just not in the way it is frequently portrait to be, in particular, development on this model will not lead to General Intelligence, which is not a data training/stat problem altogether. With how the ML field is shaping up to be today, it doesn't even look to be a Machine Learning problem. And let me just add a ridiculous comparison, since you are assuming that it is a path towards AGI: > iPhone 4 isn't fusion energy. It's incredibly useful and a tectonic shift in the cellphone industry, but it's not producing energy. The analogy might sound completely insane, but that's how different machine learning of today and general intelligence is. While AI of today feels like a blackbox, at every stage of its training we know to a degree what it is doing, and once trained, it is as deterministic as a few billion interconnected if else connected to a random seed generator. It could do a lot of things, acquiring a mind of its own isn't one of it. I wouldn't be worried just yet, because AGI is something that research have barely had an idea on how it's going to look outside of our brain, or even inside. I'm not saying that it will never come, just that I highly doubt it will be invented in my lifetime. In the meanwhile, I have something that all of bots today won't have, initiative.

circuit10 4y ago
But from what I’ve seen many skilled AI researchers who have even reimplemented these models themselves do in fact believe that a scaled up ChatGPT could be AGI, or at least that it’s a step towards AGI
- Aperocky 4y ago
  > many skilled citation needed, I'm only aware of one case which might be characterized as such (though I digress): https://www.engadget.com/blake-lemoide-fired-google-lamda-sentient-001746197.html https://www.engadget.com/blake-lemoide-fired-google-lamda-se...
guy98238710 4y ago
AGI is defined as human-level performance across wide variety of tasks. ChatGPT achieves that. It's somewhat stupid and limited (no vision, hearing, manipulation), but still, in principle, it's AGI.
- Aperocky 4y ago
  I don't want to argue about the semantics or definition of AGI, since that is a rabbit hole that I don't believe contribute anything to the subjective danger that people are feeling. The only thing I want to say about ChatGPT and other LLM model is that they don't know what they are doing. Give me something that knows what its doing, and perhaps more importantly, what it wants to do. Then I'll acknowledge my personal obsolescence, if not at that point then in quick succession, but until then.
  - happythebob 4y ago
    Right now everything is in such a grey area that we could take this discussion in so many ways. Writing it off because it doesn't mean what it says misses the point, in my opinion, the point is that anyone who knows how to write the correct questions can work with ChatGPT to develop things things they couldn't before, improve their own writings, and potentially replace their need to consult others, for a quick list. You are the one saying that belief behind the writing matters. What if the audience decides to upvote ChatGPT instead of you? Who says conviction is essential? I would also contest you by suggesting that the fearful ones are the one's who find a need to downplay the threat, or we can rephrase it, advanced usefulness of current, let alone near-future versions. And I realize ChatGPT could have written this post quicker than I did, including a version that contains my typo patterns, as well as a more concise and grammatically improved version...
    - Aperocky 4y ago
      It is unsurprising to find wisdom in 570GB of human generated text. It is unsurprising to find useful information being returned when a statistical process is used to extract value from those text. It's a similar process to how search engine work, except more costly and the result more natural. However, if you choose to believe that the above process is signifying the development artificial intelligence that will start to have its own consciousness, then good for you. Again, I'm not saying ChatGPT is useless or won't replace many jobs, it is amazing in its own right. It's like a refined and more useful google, which is huge. I'm only arguing that it is not AGI, will not develop into AGI, attempting to argue for its usefulness in other area is not arguing against me - no strawman please. As for myself, I'm not too worried for my job from this angle (there are plenty of other angles to worry about, that is), for with all tooling that develops, it benefits the people who could best put the said tool to work.
cheeze 4y ago
The big question I'd ask is "do we need AGI?" Surely an LLM could take over the ordering flow at say, Jack in the Box today. That's gotta be true for a lot of different situations.
- Aperocky 4y ago
  I see this as another step in automation, like the sewing machine, the internal combustion engine, the microchip, internet, etc.
- dinkumthinkum 4y ago
  I don’t think ChatGPT is AGI nor do I think LLMs can be AGI but I don’t see why any person with any sort of reasonable value system and understanding of reality would think we need AGI; of course I’m not convinced it’s possible a Turing Machine framework. Someone else said “it’s just another type of automation. No, it’s fundamentally different than other kind of automation. It would eliminate economics of knowledge work if left unchecked and probably many other areas of work. I don’t think plumbers would be called the “rich” anymore if that sort of work is all that’s left. I’m fact, it could be much worse than that. This would have a profoundly deleterious effect on society. Economic conditions that cause unrest and violence outside of the West would probably be the case throughout the world. Sone people that is called something like “post scarcity”, I think that is the new version “perpetual motion”.
happythebob 4y ago
I'm not happy to say this, but to these kinds of posts I say the truth: An old version of ChatGPT could have written a better version of your post than you in 2-5 seconds.
- Aperocky 4y ago
  Of course, except it said so because the training weights aligned on previously learned material, or you lead it to say so by tweaking those probabilities with your input. You can also easily make it say the complete opposite, which you'll have a hard time to do with me, because I actually meant what I said. In fact, the next iteration of ChatGPT might have used my very words right here to construct its response.

circuit10 4y ago

But from what I’ve seen many skilled AI researchers who have even reimplemented these models themselves do in fact believe that a scaled up ChatGPT could be AGI, or at least that it’s a step towards AGI

Aperocky 4y ago
> many skilled citation needed, I'm only aware of one case which might be characterized as such (though I digress): https://www.engadget.com/blake-lemoide-fired-google-lamda-sentient-001746197.html https://www.engadget.com/blake-lemoide-fired-google-lamda-se...

guy98238710 4y ago

AGI is defined as human-level performance across wide variety of tasks. ChatGPT achieves that. It's somewhat stupid and limited (no vision, hearing, manipulation), but still, in principle, it's AGI.

Aperocky 4y ago
I don't want to argue about the semantics or definition of AGI, since that is a rabbit hole that I don't believe contribute anything to the subjective danger that people are feeling. The only thing I want to say about ChatGPT and other LLM model is that they don't know what they are doing. Give me something that knows what its doing, and perhaps more importantly, what it wants to do. Then I'll acknowledge my personal obsolescence, if not at that point then in quick succession, but until then.
- happythebob 4y ago
  Right now everything is in such a grey area that we could take this discussion in so many ways. Writing it off because it doesn't mean what it says misses the point, in my opinion, the point is that anyone who knows how to write the correct questions can work with ChatGPT to develop things things they couldn't before, improve their own writings, and potentially replace their need to consult others, for a quick list. You are the one saying that belief behind the writing matters. What if the audience decides to upvote ChatGPT instead of you? Who says conviction is essential? I would also contest you by suggesting that the fearful ones are the one's who find a need to downplay the threat, or we can rephrase it, advanced usefulness of current, let alone near-future versions. And I realize ChatGPT could have written this post quicker than I did, including a version that contains my typo patterns, as well as a more concise and grammatically improved version...
  - Aperocky 4y ago
    It is unsurprising to find wisdom in 570GB of human generated text. It is unsurprising to find useful information being returned when a statistical process is used to extract value from those text. It's a similar process to how search engine work, except more costly and the result more natural. However, if you choose to believe that the above process is signifying the development artificial intelligence that will start to have its own consciousness, then good for you. Again, I'm not saying ChatGPT is useless or won't replace many jobs, it is amazing in its own right. It's like a refined and more useful google, which is huge. I'm only arguing that it is not AGI, will not develop into AGI, attempting to argue for its usefulness in other area is not arguing against me - no strawman please. As for myself, I'm not too worried for my job from this angle (there are plenty of other angles to worry about, that is), for with all tooling that develops, it benefits the people who could best put the said tool to work.

cheeze 4y ago

The big question I'd ask is "do we need AGI?" Surely an LLM could take over the ordering flow at say, Jack in the Box today. That's gotta be true for a lot of different situations.

Aperocky 4y ago
I see this as another step in automation, like the sewing machine, the internal combustion engine, the microchip, internet, etc.
dinkumthinkum 4y ago
I don’t think ChatGPT is AGI nor do I think LLMs can be AGI but I don’t see why any person with any sort of reasonable value system and understanding of reality would think we need AGI; of course I’m not convinced it’s possible a Turing Machine framework. Someone else said “it’s just another type of automation. No, it’s fundamentally different than other kind of automation. It would eliminate economics of knowledge work if left unchecked and probably many other areas of work. I don’t think plumbers would be called the “rich” anymore if that sort of work is all that’s left. I’m fact, it could be much worse than that. This would have a profoundly deleterious effect on society. Economic conditions that cause unrest and violence outside of the West would probably be the case throughout the world. Sone people that is called something like “post scarcity”, I think that is the new version “perpetual motion”.

happythebob 4y ago

I'm not happy to say this, but to these kinds of posts I say the truth: An old version of ChatGPT could have written a better version of your post than you in 2-5 seconds.

Aperocky 4y ago
Of course, except it said so because the training weights aligned on previously learned material, or you lead it to say so by tweaking those probabilities with your input. You can also easily make it say the complete opposite, which you'll have a hard time to do with me, because I actually meant what I said. In fact, the next iteration of ChatGPT might have used my very words right here to construct its response.