3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
    - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
      The article seems to leave for itself wiggle room in several such places, suggesting the author had an agenda. Likely ideological rejection of AI as intelligence.
Sunhold 4y ago
There is no evidence at all that it copied the smartphone game. No one has even been able to show a textual description of its rules online that could be copied. And modifying the rules of Sudoko to create a variation is well within ChatGPT's known abilities. You can easily test this stuff yourself.
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  It's quite bizarre to watch this discrimination against AI forming, where we make these increasingly more intelligent entities, and now everyone is out to prove they're stupid, and by definition they'll always be stupid, because only humans can be smart. I don't want or need to anthropomorphize AI (yet?), but this reaction by us is a tad too similar to rather uncomfortable parts of our history.
BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
Did you read carefully? Your second link is a game different than Sumplete's rules, so not sure why you linked it. You have one source, the Digital Trends article. It speaks about a mobile game being similar. The link here is at best circumstantial. The app page doesn't describe the rules of the game. Instead it says this: "It is very similar to classical game of Kakuro" I checked Kakuro, and it has similar, but distinctly DIFFERENT rules, as well. So, what's the theory here? GPT downloaded the game and ran it on its phone? No. Maybe the description of this game is somewhere. Maybe. But I couldn't find it. Where is it? The excuse "it's somewhere, so it didn't invent it" will always be used for why an AI can't produce a "novel idea". While the reality of novel ideas is very simple: it's like conservation of matter & energy. You can never make something or destroy it. You can only rearrange it. New ideas are a rearrangement of other existing ideas. It's the case for everything we ever made. And everything we ourselves are.
- pksebben 4y ago
  This is a discussion in the art world that you'd hear a lot, before stable diffusion came out. The whole idea of "steal like an artist". It's one of those questions about the nature of us that's on the level of "is there a ghost in the machine"; "do we have actually novel ideas?". I'm kind of leaning the way you are; I don't think we do. What seems to be happening that we _call_ novelty is just an advanced form of recursive synthesis - we take information in and remix it. But we're capable of levels of abstraction, so we can remix it really well. I think that getting the abstraction part into these models might just be as simple as wiring them together with a meta-model. A network responsible for identifying similarity between outputs of different types, or one that serves as a connective layer, distributing tokens through other networks and then synthesizing the results. What I'm almost certain of, is that the important changes are going to be architectural.
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    The important changes will be architectural, yes. Three things I'm noticing: 1. We're reinventing structured programming in AI in fast forward. First it's a plain Markov chain. Then it's an "attention" directed acyclic graph. Then we realize we need loops. Then we realize we need to jump to different points in the loop. Then we realize it's useful to recursively call yourself or parts of yourself as a subroutine, parametrized with specific input. Etc. 2. Even before we fully realize this framework of thought into a model, I'm almost sure the model EVOLVES some of these structures during training. In the form of crude unrolled loops etc. Simply because it's inevitable for processing certain types of input data. 3. In order to preserve pragmatic outcomes, I'd bet the future is not one giant monolithic model for AI, but many medium-sized models, communicating in a meta network, like meta neurons, sending meta (high-level) messages to each other. Essentially, we need to make neural networks more like a fractal. I have this rule of thumb that always works somehow: "no concept definition is complete, until it's made recursive". Neural networks will get there.

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.
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    The article seems to leave for itself wiggle room in several such places, suggesting the author had an agenda. Likely ideological rejection of AI as intelligence.

Sunhold 4y ago

There is no evidence at all that it copied the smartphone game. No one has even been able to show a textual description of its rules online that could be copied. And modifying the rules of Sudoko to create a variation is well within ChatGPT's known abilities. You can easily test this stuff yourself.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
It's quite bizarre to watch this discrimination against AI forming, where we make these increasingly more intelligent entities, and now everyone is out to prove they're stupid, and by definition they'll always be stupid, because only humans can be smart. I don't want or need to anthropomorphize AI (yet?), but this reaction by us is a tad too similar to rather uncomfortable parts of our history.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago

Did you read carefully? Your second link is a game different than Sumplete's rules, so not sure why you linked it. You have one source, the Digital Trends article. It speaks about a mobile game being similar. The link here is at best circumstantial. The app page doesn't describe the rules of the game. Instead it says this: "It is very similar to classical game of Kakuro" I checked Kakuro, and it has similar, but distinctly DIFFERENT rules, as well. So, what's the theory here? GPT downloaded the game and ran it on its phone? No. Maybe the description of this game is somewhere. Maybe. But I couldn't find it. Where is it? The excuse "it's somewhere, so it didn't invent it" will always be used for why an AI can't produce a "novel idea". While the reality of novel ideas is very simple: it's like conservation of matter & energy. You can never make something or destroy it. You can only rearrange it. New ideas are a rearrangement of other existing ideas. It's the case for everything we ever made. And everything we ourselves are.

pksebben 4y ago
This is a discussion in the art world that you'd hear a lot, before stable diffusion came out. The whole idea of "steal like an artist". It's one of those questions about the nature of us that's on the level of "is there a ghost in the machine"; "do we have actually novel ideas?". I'm kind of leaning the way you are; I don't think we do. What seems to be happening that we _call_ novelty is just an advanced form of recursive synthesis - we take information in and remix it. But we're capable of levels of abstraction, so we can remix it really well. I think that getting the abstraction part into these models might just be as simple as wiring them together with a meta-model. A network responsible for identifying similarity between outputs of different types, or one that serves as a connective layer, distributing tokens through other networks and then synthesizing the results. What I'm almost certain of, is that the important changes are going to be architectural.
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  The important changes will be architectural, yes. Three things I'm noticing: 1. We're reinventing structured programming in AI in fast forward. First it's a plain Markov chain. Then it's an "attention" directed acyclic graph. Then we realize we need loops. Then we realize we need to jump to different points in the loop. Then we realize it's useful to recursively call yourself or parts of yourself as a subroutine, parametrized with specific input. Etc. 2. Even before we fully realize this framework of thought into a model, I'm almost sure the model EVOLVES some of these structures during training. In the form of crude unrolled loops etc. Simply because it's inevitable for processing certain types of input data. 3. In order to preserve pragmatic outcomes, I'd bet the future is not one giant monolithic model for AI, but many medium-sized models, communicating in a meta network, like meta neurons, sending meta (high-level) messages to each other. Essentially, we need to make neural networks more like a fractal. I have this rule of thumb that always works somehow: "no concept definition is complete, until it's made recursive". Neural networks will get there.