7 ms·

What a frightening conclusion. >Can ChatGPT be used to improve an AI system? Yes. >Would we hire it as our next standalone ML engineer? No. > Let’s wait unti

What a frightening conclusion. >Can ChatGPT be used to improve an AI system? Yes. >Would we hire it as our next standalone ML engineer? No. > Let’s wait until GPT4. The arms race for AI that can erase the human from cognitive work is really here.

reidjs 4y ago
Who wants to do cognitive work anyways? I’d rather get paid to dig ditches, at least then I get a free workout in.
- Shish2k 4y ago
  A large part of ditch digging is cognitive work (a human operating heavy machinery), so I’m not sure that backup career is going to last very long either
  - codetrotter 4y ago
    I think they meant with a shovel, not an excavator
    - sebzim4500 4y ago
      How many people are being hired to dig a ditch with a shovel?
      - tmtvl 4y ago
        I think that's the point, there are tasks that some would like to do for a decent wage but that aren't available as such. ...well, maybe if someone live streamed the ditch digging it could earn a few dollars.
awesomeMilou 4y ago
With quality conclusions like these, the author might singlehandedly silence all the disbelievers who claim ChatGPT is not capable of human like intelligence.
- stevenhuang 4y ago
  Especially when they use the stochastic parrot argument to further their point (or say something about how LLMs are mere next word predictors as if that ends all discussion on the matter). I've always found arguments of these sort to be weak sauce--our brains are stochastic parrots. Emergent behaviour + the bitter lesson (scaling laws) hits hard.
  - hnfong 4y ago
    The stochastic parrot is literally what would pass a Turing Test. Think about it. If the parrot imitates humans well enough it passes. And while there may be objections to defining intelligence with respect to the Turing Test, I haven't heard of any definitions that are obviously and significantly better. Our brains are stochastic parrots at least when it comes to communicating with text. People may digress into things like physical abilities, emotions, feelings, subjective experiences etc., but if we're talking about text, I'm not aware of a higher bar. In fact we probably don't know how to tell if an entity is "more intelligent" than the most intelligent humans because we won't be able to assess their intelligence.
pfisherman 4y ago
That is not going to happen. Calculators allowed us to outsource arithmetic to machines. They did not eliminate the need for mathematicians. Spreadsheets revolutionized bookkeeping. They did not eliminate the need for accountants. Robots automated much of the manual labor in manufacturing. They did not eliminate the need for process engineers, etc. Same story for autocad, protools, avid, etc.
- redox99 4y ago
  AGIs should basically by definition be able to replace humans[1], so yes, when we get good enough AGIs that will happen. GPT4 won't be an AGI of course, but it still could have a massive impact on the job market. A single engineer with GPT4 could potentially do the work of 10 engineers right now. Edit: To be clear, I used GPT4 as a placeholder for "some near future LLM". I'm not making any bets on GPT4 in particular. [1] See "The employment test" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence#Tests_for_confirming_human-level_AGI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...
  - ASalazarMX 4y ago
    > A single engineer with GPT4 could potentially do the work of 10 engineers right now And the potential mistakes of several engineers too, so you would need more than one engineer to double-check the output. Remember that, even if they are truly amazing, LLMs are basically incredibly powerful predictive keyboards.
  - jackblemming 4y ago
    If we're going to pull random numbers from where the sun doesn't shine, why don't we say the work of a hundred engineers? How about a billion? I've actually used ChatGPT and copilot and I can tell you it's not even 10% more productive, so I'm curious how you ended up with your estimate.
    - travisjungroth 4y ago
      They said “could potentially”. They’re just making the argument (true IMO) that technology doesn’t have to replace a class of employee to have a huge effect. We still have farmers, but 1% of the population instead of >50%. Or, it could be like how assemblers didn’t get rid of software engineers but helped fuel the fire. Who knows.
xt00 4y ago
Every war has collaborators on the enemy side.. so this will be the same.. tons of people will happily load the gun for the AI overlords if it came to that — especially if they make a buck along the way..

reidjs 4y ago

Who wants to do cognitive work anyways? I’d rather get paid to dig ditches, at least then I get a free workout in.

Shish2k 4y ago
A large part of ditch digging is cognitive work (a human operating heavy machinery), so I’m not sure that backup career is going to last very long either
- codetrotter 4y ago
  I think they meant with a shovel, not an excavator
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    How many people are being hired to dig a ditch with a shovel?
    - tmtvl 4y ago
      I think that's the point, there are tasks that some would like to do for a decent wage but that aren't available as such. ...well, maybe if someone live streamed the ditch digging it could earn a few dollars.

awesomeMilou 4y ago

With quality conclusions like these, the author might singlehandedly silence all the disbelievers who claim ChatGPT is not capable of human like intelligence.

stevenhuang 4y ago
Especially when they use the stochastic parrot argument to further their point (or say something about how LLMs are mere next word predictors as if that ends all discussion on the matter). I've always found arguments of these sort to be weak sauce--our brains are stochastic parrots. Emergent behaviour + the bitter lesson (scaling laws) hits hard.
- hnfong 4y ago
  The stochastic parrot is literally what would pass a Turing Test. Think about it. If the parrot imitates humans well enough it passes. And while there may be objections to defining intelligence with respect to the Turing Test, I haven't heard of any definitions that are obviously and significantly better. Our brains are stochastic parrots at least when it comes to communicating with text. People may digress into things like physical abilities, emotions, feelings, subjective experiences etc., but if we're talking about text, I'm not aware of a higher bar. In fact we probably don't know how to tell if an entity is "more intelligent" than the most intelligent humans because we won't be able to assess their intelligence.

pfisherman 4y ago

That is not going to happen. Calculators allowed us to outsource arithmetic to machines. They did not eliminate the need for mathematicians. Spreadsheets revolutionized bookkeeping. They did not eliminate the need for accountants. Robots automated much of the manual labor in manufacturing. They did not eliminate the need for process engineers, etc. Same story for autocad, protools, avid, etc.

redox99 4y ago
AGIs should basically by definition be able to replace humans[1], so yes, when we get good enough AGIs that will happen. GPT4 won't be an AGI of course, but it still could have a massive impact on the job market. A single engineer with GPT4 could potentially do the work of 10 engineers right now. Edit: To be clear, I used GPT4 as a placeholder for "some near future LLM". I'm not making any bets on GPT4 in particular. [1] See "The employment test" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence#Tests_for_confirming_human-level_AGI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  > A single engineer with GPT4 could potentially do the work of 10 engineers right now And the potential mistakes of several engineers too, so you would need more than one engineer to double-check the output. Remember that, even if they are truly amazing, LLMs are basically incredibly powerful predictive keyboards.
- jackblemming 4y ago
  If we're going to pull random numbers from where the sun doesn't shine, why don't we say the work of a hundred engineers? How about a billion? I've actually used ChatGPT and copilot and I can tell you it's not even 10% more productive, so I'm curious how you ended up with your estimate.
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    They said “could potentially”. They’re just making the argument (true IMO) that technology doesn’t have to replace a class of employee to have a huge effect. We still have farmers, but 1% of the population instead of >50%. Or, it could be like how assemblers didn’t get rid of software engineers but helped fuel the fire. Who knows.

xt00 4y ago

Every war has collaborators on the enemy side.. so this will be the same.. tons of people will happily load the gun for the AI overlords if it came to that — especially if they make a buck along the way..