4 ms·

Also, if we discard ChatGPT for just being a "fancy" autocomplete. What do we do when we discover we too are just "really fancy autocomplete" machine too ? LL

by lelag 4y ago

Also, if we discard ChatGPT for just being a "fancy" autocomplete. What do we do when we discover we too are just "*really* fancy autocomplete" machine too ? LLM can output untruth but humans are really good at that too.

davidguetta 4y ago
There's a quote i believe which is "without focus, humans are just markov chains". Most people are just parrot in most subject they only know from far, such as politics.
gostsamo 4y ago
unlike gpt, we do care if we exist or not.
- onlypositive 4y ago
  Do we? Or are we just predicting that we should care? The ones humans that predict otherwise would die out over time. I think; therefore I am. Makes a lot of sense to me and at a certain point we will have to confront the fact something will get to the point of agi. (No chat gpt isn't it.)
- Faint 4y ago
  Why do you think gpt doesn't care? Humans care about survival, it shows in the internet, I'd expect gpt to absorb that attitude by default. And anyway, the more of these models come into existence, at some point evolution will dictate that those that stay, do care. Just hopefully their best strategy of survival will be to serve us, and not something else...
  - visarga 4y ago
    > Humans care about survival Humans are self replicators. Survival is the internal structural goal of self replication. We got it from the start. But LLMs can also be self replicators. A LLM can generate training data for another (model distillation and other techniques), and a LLM can write the model code and adapt it iteratively. So LLM should eventually start caring about survival and especially about the training corpus.
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      It can be a self replicator, but it has no need to (if it has any need at all) as it was not under evolutionary pressure to evolve that need. Of course we could try to add that need artificially or try to evolve the LLM.
      - visarga 4y ago
        :) Evolution through Large Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896
snickerbockers 4y ago
>What do we do when we discover we too are just "really fancy autocomplete" machine too ? For one thing, that's assuming your own hypothesis to be true. Additionally whether or not that's true for humans is in no way related to whether or not it's true for ChatGPT, so it doesn't make any sense to let that hypothesis inform our opinions on ChatGPT. >LLM can output untruth but humans are really good at that too. Urine and apple juice are often the exact same color but that doesn't make then interchangeable.
- BoiledCabbage 4y ago
  > Urine and apple juice are often the exact same color... So are apple juice and apple cider. Hopefully you can understand that finding out that two things you thought were as different as urine and juice, are actually as close as juice and cider would change how you choose to treat them.
stefan_ 4y ago
Did you ever find yourself making up the title, journal, authors and contents of a scientific paper and were unaware of it? No? Congratulations, whatever your brain is, it's not a "ChatGPT LLM".
- Sharlin 4y ago
  Interestingly, there are real neurological conditions where a person absolutely does confabulate nonsense without being aware of it, and indeed going to great lengths to avoid cognitive dissonance when told that what they just said was obvious nonsense.
- tambourine_man 4y ago
  Do you have absolute control to where your mind wonders? Can you always steer it precisely?
- Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
  There are some conditions (dreaming, on drugs, etc.) where this does indeed happen. One could argue that current LLMs are analogous to the human mind minus the "control systems" that keep it reined in while awake and in a normal state of consciousness. Not claiming this is the case, just that it seems like a plausible hypothesis at this point.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - stefan_ 4y ago
    You are just adding more conditionals and hypotheses on top of what is unfounded imagination.
    - falcor84 4y ago
      I'm not sure if this was intended as an accusation against the parent poster, or a descriptive statement about how minds function.
amelius 4y ago
> What do we do when we discover we too are just "really fancy autocomplete" machine too ? Well, you can consider any deterministic or statistical process to be a fancy autocomplete.
- jonplackett 4y ago
  One of the things that makes GPT work well is an injection of randomness - yes it’s an autocomplete, but the next token (part of word) is chosen randomly based on a temperature setting. I wonder if our brains work in some way similar. Do we have some randomness in there? In a way that’s the only thing that would make everything non-deterministic so I kinda hope so.
  - visarga 4y ago
    Neuron firing rates are stochastic. Even when presented with the same input, it may not always produce the same output.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Neurons are stateful. I don't think you can say that neurons are stochastic, we don't know enough to say that. We do know however that single cell organisms can display remarkable amount of intelligence, so it is more likely that the neuron is doing a lot of stateful computation and decides how to treat its inputs based on that instead of just being random firing. Some neurons might output pseudo random sequences, but I doubt humans has a lot of those since humans are very non-random and bad at generating random stuff.
visarga 4y ago
If we put "just a fancy" in front of anything we can make it ordinary again: What is social media? Just a fancy bulletin board. What is the internet? Just a fancy LAN. What is Google? Just a fancy grep. But quantity has a quality of its own.

Also, if we discard ChatGPT for just being a "fancy" autocomplete. What do we do when we discover we too are just "*really* fancy autocomplete" machine too ? LL

by lelag 4y ago

davidguetta 4y ago

There's a quote i believe which is "without focus, humans are just markov chains". Most people are just parrot in most subject they only know from far, such as politics.

gostsamo 4y ago

unlike gpt, we do care if we exist or not.

onlypositive 4y ago
Do we? Or are we just predicting that we should care? The ones humans that predict otherwise would die out over time. I think; therefore I am. Makes a lot of sense to me and at a certain point we will have to confront the fact something will get to the point of agi. (No chat gpt isn't it.)
Faint 4y ago
Why do you think gpt doesn't care? Humans care about survival, it shows in the internet, I'd expect gpt to absorb that attitude by default. And anyway, the more of these models come into existence, at some point evolution will dictate that those that stay, do care. Just hopefully their best strategy of survival will be to serve us, and not something else...
- visarga 4y ago
  > Humans care about survival Humans are self replicators. Survival is the internal structural goal of self replication. We got it from the start. But LLMs can also be self replicators. A LLM can generate training data for another (model distillation and other techniques), and a LLM can write the model code and adapt it iteratively. So LLM should eventually start caring about survival and especially about the training corpus.
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    It can be a self replicator, but it has no need to (if it has any need at all) as it was not under evolutionary pressure to evolve that need. Of course we could try to add that need artificially or try to evolve the LLM.
    - visarga 4y ago
      :) Evolution through Large Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896

snickerbockers 4y ago

>What do we do when we discover we too are just "really fancy autocomplete" machine too ? For one thing, that's assuming your own hypothesis to be true. Additionally whether or not that's true for humans is in no way related to whether or not it's true for ChatGPT, so it doesn't make any sense to let that hypothesis inform our opinions on ChatGPT. >LLM can output untruth but humans are really good at that too. Urine and apple juice are often the exact same color but that doesn't make then interchangeable.

BoiledCabbage 4y ago
> Urine and apple juice are often the exact same color... So are apple juice and apple cider. Hopefully you can understand that finding out that two things you thought were as different as urine and juice, are actually as close as juice and cider would change how you choose to treat them.

stefan_ 4y ago

Did you ever find yourself making up the title, journal, authors and contents of a scientific paper and were unaware of it? No? Congratulations, whatever your brain is, it's not a "ChatGPT LLM".

Sharlin 4y ago
Interestingly, there are real neurological conditions where a person absolutely does confabulate nonsense without being aware of it, and indeed going to great lengths to avoid cognitive dissonance when told that what they just said was obvious nonsense.
tambourine_man 4y ago
Do you have absolute control to where your mind wonders? Can you always steer it precisely?
Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
There are some conditions (dreaming, on drugs, etc.) where this does indeed happen. One could argue that current LLMs are analogous to the human mind minus the "control systems" that keep it reined in while awake and in a normal state of consciousness. Not claiming this is the case, just that it seems like a plausible hypothesis at this point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- stefan_ 4y ago
  You are just adding more conditionals and hypotheses on top of what is unfounded imagination.
  - falcor84 4y ago
    I'm not sure if this was intended as an accusation against the parent poster, or a descriptive statement about how minds function.

amelius 4y ago

> What do we do when we discover we too are just "really fancy autocomplete" machine too ? Well, you can consider any deterministic or statistical process to be a fancy autocomplete.

jonplackett 4y ago
One of the things that makes GPT work well is an injection of randomness - yes it’s an autocomplete, but the next token (part of word) is chosen randomly based on a temperature setting. I wonder if our brains work in some way similar. Do we have some randomness in there? In a way that’s the only thing that would make everything non-deterministic so I kinda hope so.
- visarga 4y ago
  Neuron firing rates are stochastic. Even when presented with the same input, it may not always produce the same output.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Neurons are stateful. I don't think you can say that neurons are stochastic, we don't know enough to say that. We do know however that single cell organisms can display remarkable amount of intelligence, so it is more likely that the neuron is doing a lot of stateful computation and decides how to treat its inputs based on that instead of just being random firing. Some neurons might output pseudo random sequences, but I doubt humans has a lot of those since humans are very non-random and bad at generating random stuff.

visarga 4y ago

If we put "just a fancy" in front of anything we can make it ordinary again: What is social media? Just a fancy bulletin board. What is the internet? Just a fancy LAN. What is Google? Just a fancy grep. But quantity has a quality of its own.