6 ms·

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'

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.
    - fock 4y ago
      There's no memory or iteration log. You are just priming the (more or less deterministic even...) predictor with some history. You are doing a lot of work yourself, setting a factually correct context (and this has severe limits...). As for "we just need a way to include iterations": isn't this what attention is supposed to do (kind of dynamically updating weights). The usual way to really update weights are variations on gradient descent. Can you link a paper outlining how we integrate your proposal into the current framework (which took around 20years to mature)? Otherwise your statements are Sci-Fi (at the flying cars-level).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
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.

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.
  - fock 4y ago
    There's no memory or iteration log. You are just priming the (more or less deterministic even...) predictor with some history. You are doing a lot of work yourself, setting a factually correct context (and this has severe limits...). As for "we just need a way to include iterations": isn't this what attention is supposed to do (kind of dynamically updating weights). The usual way to really update weights are variations on gradient descent. Can you link a paper outlining how we integrate your proposal into the current framework (which took around 20years to mature)? Otherwise your statements are Sci-Fi (at the flying cars-level).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

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.