6 ms·

This is nonsense. These nets regurgitate the most average possible output given inputs. By definition. You’re conflating and hyping and mixing up so many weird

This is nonsense. These nets regurgitate the most average possible output given inputs. By definition. You’re conflating and hyping and mixing up so many weird things at once. You literally couldn’t get GPT to come up with a single novelty if you tried. It’s all remixing existing content, and again, doing so in a way to fit the average of the dataset. When you realize this you realize it has no intelligence as we most typically define it (novel solutions to novel problems).. its not AI. Call it what it is: a beautifully advanced way to regurgitate the exact most popular (mundane) reply you’d expect given a huge dataset. It’s sort of good for studying what already exists. It won’t even really ever show you the edges though so it’s actually almost dangerously deceptive as evidenced by this absurd rounding up people are doing. If you want to learn the gist of anything, ask GPT. If you want to know anything in depth, GPT in fact will only mislead you towards genericity, platitudinous mediocrity.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
Has GPT ever told you "let me think" and then you notice it actually pause for a few seconds? No. Its output is fixed cost. GPT can't think in depth because it's not allowed to. This is something I already covered above by noting that current NN models are a DAG. We're already experimenting with variations that can iterate internally, and therefore think deeper, using still their existing knowledge. And the results change dramatically. You're also not right that GPT can't produce anything novel. Here's a tiny, modest example: https://sumplete.com/about/ https://sumplete.com/about/ I won't waste my time, as I see you didn't read what you responded to the first time. But you need to start paying attention. You denial & empty confidence in what's happening will only get you so far.
- nwienert 4y ago
  Considering my former co founder works at OpenAI and we spent years working on and talking about related ML with and around some of the best people in the world, considering I’ve implemented language models multiple times myself, please try and be more specific on where I’m wrong. I know many people who work in ML share this concern - people thinking it’s smart, it’s more than it is. It’s very useful no doubt, but your comment is an example of extrapolation from maladjusted priors. Your example proves my point, a very uninteresting looking game. I don’t even doubt GPT will find all sorts of interesting stuff by giving averaged out things. There’s plenty of gaps in the averages humans have missed. But nothing new, and until you can show that let’s just call it what it is.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    Your goalpost moved from "nothing novel" to "it's novel, but it's not interesting to me". I'll let not the years ahead, but literally the DAYS ahead prove you wrong. Because things are changing quite rapidly lately.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    I've seen ChatGPT draw logical conclusions from (most-likely) previously unseen axioms. I've seen it invent ideas that (most-likely) were not in his training set. I've seen it fail too, but when it succeeds I can not substantially distinguish it from the novelty or logical reasoning of a human. On niche subjects, it fails often. But you can get it to correct itself by making it think logically by spelling out axioms, which seems to fit your definition of novelty. All the arguments I've read about it not being intelligent seem to stem from some form of essentialism. Right now it's dumb intelligent but I think giving it an adjustable recursive depth, similarly to what BulgarianIdiot suggests, will go a long way to improving it given its base capabilities.
    - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
      Indeed. And telling it to spell out the steps in math solution is essentially (ab)using the chat log as the memory for an iteration loop. This demonstrates then when you instruct it "break down the problem and solve it iteratively" it comes out with superior solutions. More accurate, more novel. Ergo, then if it was allowed to iterate in this way internally, it'd produce better answers by default. This thread sums up the same idea: https://twitter.com/ItIsFinch/status/1634730897520951296 https://twitter.com/ItIsFinch/status/1634730897520951296
      - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
        Yeah, I think it's going to be a promising area of research. It's known as Chain-Of-Thought (CoT) in the literature and there are a few papers already out: https://openreview.net/forum?id=_VjQlMeSB_J https://openreview.net/forum?id=_VjQlMeSB_J https://openreview.net/forum?id=5NTt8GFjUHkr https://openreview.net/forum?id=5NTt8GFjUHkr https://openreview.net/forum?id=qFVVBzXxR2V https://openreview.net/forum?id=qFVVBzXxR2V I'm also looking forward to explicit long-term memory mechanisms that don't rely on the main architecture's weights nor on CoT.
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  > We're already experimenting with variations that can iterate internally, and therefore think deeper, using still their existing knowledge. And the results change dramatically. This is still just deterministic except for a bit of noise to vary the output. There is no "thinking" going on. What you get is still just the most statistically likely output based on the training data.
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    You're also deterministic. Except for a bit of noise. This is less of a slam dunk argument than many think it is.
- WoodenChair 4y ago
  > You're also not right that GPT can't produce anything novel. Here's a tiny, modest example Actually it turned out it didn't invent any of the games in that article. You can just Google them and find out.[0][1] Reading is not believing. 0: https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sumplete-chatgpt-ai-game-design-ethics/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sumplete-chatgpt-ai-gam... 1: https://www.novelgames.com/en/labyrinthsudoku/ https://www.novelgames.com/en/labyrinthsudoku/ > I won't waste my time, as I see you didn't read what you responded to the first time. But you need to start paying attention. You denial & empty confidence in what's happening will only get you so far. Maybe he didn't read what you wrote, but you didn't even bother Googling the claims in the article you posted.
  - nl 4y ago
    I wonder how ChatGTP reinvented its own game? That indicates it's being retrained very frequently on crawl data which I wasn't aware was happening - certainly not with a cycle time in the weeks!
    - Sunhold 4y ago
      It didn't. The article is nonsense. He probably primed it beforehand by talking about Sudoku, or it may have just chanced onto something similar. When I ask it to code Sumplete, it creates a "math-based game in which players have to solve a sequence of simple addition problems within a limited time to progress to the next level."
      - nl 4y ago
        It says: > “Can you code a game called Sumplete?” Despite protesting about its inability to make games earlier, ChatGPT immediately started spitting out fully formed HTML, Javascript, and CSS code. Sure enough, it had once again created a version of Tait’s game – only this time, we never discussed what it actually was beforehand. I guess "a version of Tait's game" leaves some wriggle room about exactly what it did.
        4y ago
- _puk 4y ago
  For reference, I enjoyed playing sumplete. Master level passed the time nicely (not the full 20 hours, but I did come back to it!). Mechanics work well for an AI generated game. No idea if it's novel or not, but it's a good take.
- chpatrick 4y ago
  I think people also often figure out exactly what they think mid-sentence, by way of actually putting it into words. LLMs can iterate on their ideas as they generate the text.
nl 4y ago
I didn't agree with the OP but just noting this is wrong: > These nets regurgitate the most average possible output given inputs. By definition. You seem to be confusing the training objective with the capabilities. For example: > Why Can GPT Learn In-Context? Language Models Secretly Perform Gradient Descent as Meta-Optimizers https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10559 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10559
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nwienert 4y ago
  How do you get from bigger LLMs being better at few shot learning to being able to generate novelties?
  - nl 4y ago
    I don't know. But note that this is happening at inference time, so it's not just generating the average of the input the model is trained on.
winstonprivacy 4y ago
Amen. Listen to this person, this is the voice of reason.
RedCondor 4y ago
What do you think of this? https://redsails.org/dialectics-and-ai/ https://redsails.org/dialectics-and-ai/
ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago
How can you say the outputs are average when you don't know the weights.
sirsinsalot 4y ago
Try getting a human to come up with a novel idea and you'll find their idea is just a remix of existing ones, partial understanding and a masked view of the world from their unique perspective (or they incorporated a random stimulus). This constant reach to see human cognition as somehow unique (without evidence) is tiring and frankly an ego-extension / "made in God's image" type thought hole.
- nwienert 4y ago
  Do you think this net can tell us something about math or physics that we don’t know? If so, how? The person making the claim that this is as or more intelligent than humans should at a minimum show it do something as impressive as humans. I’ll wait for a great piece of art or science until I for no reason diminish humans, that’s all. It’s not tiring to me to see the beauty of human intelligence. People seem to be able to draw outside the lines. It’s cool, it’s beautiful. I shouldn’t have to point to any specific amazing achievements because there are too many. I haven’t seen one from an LLM yet. I’ll know it when I see it! Not hating, just clarifying.
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    I didn't say an LLM is as intelligent as humans. I'm saying that human intelligence isn't some mystic process above replication or emulation ... and that if an LLM-type computation can do what it does now I see not reason it can't match or surpass human intelligence in the future. It may produce that intelligence in a different way to our organic squishglobes but I don't see that it matters.
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    The vast majority of humans I've met have never produced great works of art or science. We're holding the models to higher standards than ourselves.
- southernplaces7 4y ago
  On this site lately there seems to be a truly deep sense of unmitigated woo over all things AI and this comment nicely demonstrates it. We know so far that human cognition and sense of self is still largely a mystery and no evidence exists to show that it's just mechanical remixing of absorbed things. Contextually, many humans can indeed create novel suggestions, arguments and ideas, and they can self direct towards these in ways that no AI can so far. This does indeed make our cognition visibly unique without even having to mention anything religious ChatGPT on the other hand is literally just a well-engineered design for creating coherent phrases from a huge training set of human information. As even its very creators admit, it doesn't consciously think, consider for real or perform literal AGI in any way that's sentient. For you and others here to call this equal to human cognition is absurd and not based on measurable evidence. It seems more guided by emotional awe at something presented in a new way than guided by sober reasoning. And you talk about human-centric ego arguments being tiring?
lordnacho 4y ago
> You literally couldn’t get GPT to come up with a single novelty if you tried. It’s all remixing existing content, and again, doing so in a way to fit the average of the dataset. So if I ask chatGPT to make up a poem about the power of friendship, and it must involve a unicorn and a jackelope, it will give me that. What's not novel about it? Isn't it pretty much what any person would do, mash up some related words? What does novelty mean in this context?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cal85 4y ago
  Leaving aside the question of whether that combination of images is novel… In your example, all the proposed novelty is specified in the prompt. ChatGPT didn’t come up with it, you did. > Isn't it pretty much what any person would do, mash up some related words? Yes, that’s exactly what chatgpt does, and it’s what many humans do. But to be analogous to your initial example, there should be another person who actually came up with the instruction specifying which words to mash into a poem. The word-masher, whether human or chatgpt, is just following the instructions, not coming up with them.
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    The point is that it's able to produce content that hasn't been made before, it's not just giving back examples from the training set. It's able to--yes, with instruction--combine concepts logically to produce something new. If I ask a random person I meet to write a poem with the same instructions as were given above I'd be surprised if they were able to come up with something as good as ChatGPT.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    So kinda like when your English teacher asks you to write a poem about whatever you want? Can't ChatGPT do that as well? There's at least novelty in whatever random content it generates, is there not? Just by having a large enough library you will create a new thing because nobody's been in the jakelope/unicorn area before, or whatever the dice decide. I feel like maybe there's something about this no-novelty argument, but it's not been worded in a convincing way yet.
flir 4y ago
> You literally couldn’t get GPT to come up with a single novelty if you tried That's an interesting claim I don't know how to measure. >> Hey, ChatGPT, could you invent five words that mean hungry? > Sure, here are five words that mean hungry: > 1. Cravacious > 2. Rumble-hungry > 3. Chewyemptiness > 4. Famishy > 5. Voracihunger Is that novel? I don't know. It feels a lot like the word games Lewis Carroll or Roald Dahl played, though.
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  Few of those have zero results in Google search and sound fit for the purpose. Unfortunately none of this matters, because "no true novel AI" is at this point just the "no true Scotsman" fallacy over and and over again. We'll need to learn the hard way. Thanks for the creative test.
  - flir 4y ago
    If you're looking for ways to measure creativity, ask it for recipes and then ask it to adapt them. It'll give you a recipe that uses strawberries and anchovies if you ask it. But like the words, it's remixing existing content and knowledge. Is that creative? I don't know. It's what a chef does, though.
hnfong 4y ago
> You literally couldn’t get GPT to come up with a single novelty if you tried. Have you actually tried? You'd be surprised.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago

Has GPT ever told you "let me think" and then you notice it actually pause for a few seconds? No. Its output is fixed cost. GPT can't think in depth because it's not allowed to. This is something I already covered above by noting that current NN models are a DAG. We're already experimenting with variations that can iterate internally, and therefore think deeper, using still their existing knowledge. And the results change dramatically. You're also not right that GPT can't produce anything novel. Here's a tiny, modest example: https://sumplete.com/about/ https://sumplete.com/about/ I won't waste my time, as I see you didn't read what you responded to the first time. But you need to start paying attention. You denial & empty confidence in what's happening will only get you so far.

nwienert 4y ago
Considering my former co founder works at OpenAI and we spent years working on and talking about related ML with and around some of the best people in the world, considering I’ve implemented language models multiple times myself, please try and be more specific on where I’m wrong. I know many people who work in ML share this concern - people thinking it’s smart, it’s more than it is. It’s very useful no doubt, but your comment is an example of extrapolation from maladjusted priors. Your example proves my point, a very uninteresting looking game. I don’t even doubt GPT will find all sorts of interesting stuff by giving averaged out things. There’s plenty of gaps in the averages humans have missed. But nothing new, and until you can show that let’s just call it what it is.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  Your goalpost moved from "nothing novel" to "it's novel, but it's not interesting to me". I'll let not the years ahead, but literally the DAYS ahead prove you wrong. Because things are changing quite rapidly lately.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  I've seen ChatGPT draw logical conclusions from (most-likely) previously unseen axioms. I've seen it invent ideas that (most-likely) were not in his training set. I've seen it fail too, but when it succeeds I can not substantially distinguish it from the novelty or logical reasoning of a human. On niche subjects, it fails often. But you can get it to correct itself by making it think logically by spelling out axioms, which seems to fit your definition of novelty. All the arguments I've read about it not being intelligent seem to stem from some form of essentialism. Right now it's dumb intelligent but I think giving it an adjustable recursive depth, similarly to what BulgarianIdiot suggests, will go a long way to improving it given its base capabilities.
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    Indeed. And telling it to spell out the steps in math solution is essentially (ab)using the chat log as the memory for an iteration loop. This demonstrates then when you instruct it "break down the problem and solve it iteratively" it comes out with superior solutions. More accurate, more novel. Ergo, then if it was allowed to iterate in this way internally, it'd produce better answers by default. This thread sums up the same idea: https://twitter.com/ItIsFinch/status/1634730897520951296 https://twitter.com/ItIsFinch/status/1634730897520951296
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
      Yeah, I think it's going to be a promising area of research. It's known as Chain-Of-Thought (CoT) in the literature and there are a few papers already out: https://openreview.net/forum?id=_VjQlMeSB_J https://openreview.net/forum?id=_VjQlMeSB_J https://openreview.net/forum?id=5NTt8GFjUHkr https://openreview.net/forum?id=5NTt8GFjUHkr https://openreview.net/forum?id=qFVVBzXxR2V https://openreview.net/forum?id=qFVVBzXxR2V I'm also looking forward to explicit long-term memory mechanisms that don't rely on the main architecture's weights nor on CoT.
checkyoursudo 4y ago
> We're already experimenting with variations that can iterate internally, and therefore think deeper, using still their existing knowledge. And the results change dramatically. This is still just deterministic except for a bit of noise to vary the output. There is no "thinking" going on. What you get is still just the most statistically likely output based on the training data.
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  You're also deterministic. Except for a bit of noise. This is less of a slam dunk argument than many think it is.
WoodenChair 4y ago
> You're also not right that GPT can't produce anything novel. Here's a tiny, modest example Actually it turned out it didn't invent any of the games in that article. You can just Google them and find out.[0][1] Reading is not believing. 0: https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sumplete-chatgpt-ai-game-design-ethics/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sumplete-chatgpt-ai-gam... 1: https://www.novelgames.com/en/labyrinthsudoku/ https://www.novelgames.com/en/labyrinthsudoku/ > I won't waste my time, as I see you didn't read what you responded to the first time. But you need to start paying attention. You denial & empty confidence in what's happening will only get you so far. Maybe he didn't read what you wrote, but you didn't even bother Googling the claims in the article you posted.
- nl 4y ago
  I wonder how ChatGTP reinvented its own game? That indicates it's being retrained very frequently on crawl data which I wasn't aware was happening - certainly not with a cycle time in the weeks!
  - Sunhold 4y ago
    It didn't. The article is nonsense. He probably primed it beforehand by talking about Sudoku, or it may have just chanced onto something similar. When I ask it to code Sumplete, it creates a "math-based game in which players have to solve a sequence of simple addition problems within a limited time to progress to the next level."
    - nl 4y ago
      It says: > “Can you code a game called Sumplete?” Despite protesting about its inability to make games earlier, ChatGPT immediately started spitting out fully formed HTML, Javascript, and CSS code. Sure enough, it had once again created a version of Tait’s game – only this time, we never discussed what it actually was beforehand. I guess "a version of Tait's game" leaves some wriggle room about exactly what it did.
      - 4y ago
_puk 4y ago
For reference, I enjoyed playing sumplete. Master level passed the time nicely (not the full 20 hours, but I did come back to it!). Mechanics work well for an AI generated game. No idea if it's novel or not, but it's a good take.
chpatrick 4y ago
I think people also often figure out exactly what they think mid-sentence, by way of actually putting it into words. LLMs can iterate on their ideas as they generate the text.

nl 4y ago

I didn't agree with the OP but just noting this is wrong: > These nets regurgitate the most average possible output given inputs. By definition. You seem to be confusing the training objective with the capabilities. For example: > Why Can GPT Learn In-Context? Language Models Secretly Perform Gradient Descent as Meta-Optimizers https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10559 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10559

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nwienert 4y ago
How do you get from bigger LLMs being better at few shot learning to being able to generate novelties?
- nl 4y ago
  I don't know. But note that this is happening at inference time, so it's not just generating the average of the input the model is trained on.

winstonprivacy 4y ago

Amen. Listen to this person, this is the voice of reason.

RedCondor 4y ago

What do you think of this? https://redsails.org/dialectics-and-ai/ https://redsails.org/dialectics-and-ai/

ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago

How can you say the outputs are average when you don't know the weights.

sirsinsalot 4y ago

Try getting a human to come up with a novel idea and you'll find their idea is just a remix of existing ones, partial understanding and a masked view of the world from their unique perspective (or they incorporated a random stimulus). This constant reach to see human cognition as somehow unique (without evidence) is tiring and frankly an ego-extension / "made in God's image" type thought hole.

nwienert 4y ago
Do you think this net can tell us something about math or physics that we don’t know? If so, how? The person making the claim that this is as or more intelligent than humans should at a minimum show it do something as impressive as humans. I’ll wait for a great piece of art or science until I for no reason diminish humans, that’s all. It’s not tiring to me to see the beauty of human intelligence. People seem to be able to draw outside the lines. It’s cool, it’s beautiful. I shouldn’t have to point to any specific amazing achievements because there are too many. I haven’t seen one from an LLM yet. I’ll know it when I see it! Not hating, just clarifying.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  I didn't say an LLM is as intelligent as humans. I'm saying that human intelligence isn't some mystic process above replication or emulation ... and that if an LLM-type computation can do what it does now I see not reason it can't match or surpass human intelligence in the future. It may produce that intelligence in a different way to our organic squishglobes but I don't see that it matters.
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  The vast majority of humans I've met have never produced great works of art or science. We're holding the models to higher standards than ourselves.
southernplaces7 4y ago
On this site lately there seems to be a truly deep sense of unmitigated woo over all things AI and this comment nicely demonstrates it. We know so far that human cognition and sense of self is still largely a mystery and no evidence exists to show that it's just mechanical remixing of absorbed things. Contextually, many humans can indeed create novel suggestions, arguments and ideas, and they can self direct towards these in ways that no AI can so far. This does indeed make our cognition visibly unique without even having to mention anything religious ChatGPT on the other hand is literally just a well-engineered design for creating coherent phrases from a huge training set of human information. As even its very creators admit, it doesn't consciously think, consider for real or perform literal AGI in any way that's sentient. For you and others here to call this equal to human cognition is absurd and not based on measurable evidence. It seems more guided by emotional awe at something presented in a new way than guided by sober reasoning. And you talk about human-centric ego arguments being tiring?

lordnacho 4y ago

> You literally couldn’t get GPT to come up with a single novelty if you tried. It’s all remixing existing content, and again, doing so in a way to fit the average of the dataset. So if I ask chatGPT to make up a poem about the power of friendship, and it must involve a unicorn and a jackelope, it will give me that. What's not novel about it? Isn't it pretty much what any person would do, mash up some related words? What does novelty mean in this context?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cal85 4y ago
Leaving aside the question of whether that combination of images is novel… In your example, all the proposed novelty is specified in the prompt. ChatGPT didn’t come up with it, you did. > Isn't it pretty much what any person would do, mash up some related words? Yes, that’s exactly what chatgpt does, and it’s what many humans do. But to be analogous to your initial example, there should be another person who actually came up with the instruction specifying which words to mash into a poem. The word-masher, whether human or chatgpt, is just following the instructions, not coming up with them.
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  The point is that it's able to produce content that hasn't been made before, it's not just giving back examples from the training set. It's able to--yes, with instruction--combine concepts logically to produce something new. If I ask a random person I meet to write a poem with the same instructions as were given above I'd be surprised if they were able to come up with something as good as ChatGPT.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  So kinda like when your English teacher asks you to write a poem about whatever you want? Can't ChatGPT do that as well? There's at least novelty in whatever random content it generates, is there not? Just by having a large enough library you will create a new thing because nobody's been in the jakelope/unicorn area before, or whatever the dice decide. I feel like maybe there's something about this no-novelty argument, but it's not been worded in a convincing way yet.

flir 4y ago

> You literally couldn’t get GPT to come up with a single novelty if you tried That's an interesting claim I don't know how to measure. >> Hey, ChatGPT, could you invent five words that mean hungry? > Sure, here are five words that mean hungry: > 1. Cravacious > 2. Rumble-hungry > 3. Chewyemptiness > 4. Famishy > 5. Voracihunger Is that novel? I don't know. It feels a lot like the word games Lewis Carroll or Roald Dahl played, though.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
Few of those have zero results in Google search and sound fit for the purpose. Unfortunately none of this matters, because "no true novel AI" is at this point just the "no true Scotsman" fallacy over and and over again. We'll need to learn the hard way. Thanks for the creative test.
- flir 4y ago
  If you're looking for ways to measure creativity, ask it for recipes and then ask it to adapt them. It'll give you a recipe that uses strawberries and anchovies if you ask it. But like the words, it's remixing existing content and knowledge. Is that creative? I don't know. It's what a chef does, though.

hnfong 4y ago

> You literally couldn’t get GPT to come up with a single novelty if you tried. Have you actually tried? You'd be surprised.