4 ms·

But it will have zero credibility, so no.

1attice 4y ago
It will absolutely have great credibility. Did you read any of the code samples in the GH repo linked by OP? Here's the algorithm to get you appropriately scared. - Measure the amount of time it took to go from GPT 2 to GPT 3 - Measure the amount of time it took to go from GPT 3 to GPT 4 - Measure the code quality improvement for the same spans. Go ahead. Pick a metric. You'll notice that, not only is GPT-4 really fscking good, it represents a year-over-year improvement that is accelerating. What you are likely looking at is a classic hockey-stick exponential graph. And there is no ceiling yet in sight.
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  > And there is no ceiling yet in sight We are approaching the time when we find out if the human brain uses language encoding as its core mechanism of thought, or if it has any tricks left up its damp, fleshy sleeve.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    This would certainly vindicate several fields, 20th century analytic phil among them, with its laser focus on linguistic analysis. It's breathtaking for a philosopher to live through this era. I just wish I wasn't so frightened by the likely practical implications of handing out such a powerful tool-that-can-be-a-weapon (a TTCBAW) to anyone who can pull down a torrent.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > What you are likely looking at is a classic hockey-stick exponential graph. And there is no ceiling yet in sight. Its a pretty ironclad rule that all growth charts that look exponential are really closer to logistic and seem like they are going to go up more rapidly forever until they suddenly flatten out.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    Fine, but you missed the second sentence that you quoted. There is no ceiling in sight, so we have no way of knowing how high this curve is likely to go. For now, it approximates exponential. That's bad.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- Jensson 4y ago
  > - Measure the amount of time it took to go from GPT 2 to GPT 3 1 year. > - Measure the amount of time it took to go from GPT 3 to GPT 4 3 years. > it represents a year-over-year improvement that is accelerating. I don't see how the above shows it is accelerating.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    It does show, however, that one needs to read carefully. Please evaluate the code quality metric, as I originally asked. (Your pick.) Go look at GPT2's code.

It will absolutely have great credibility. Did you read any of the code samples in the GH repo linked by OP? Here's the algorithm to get you appropriately scared. - Measure the amount of time it took to go from GPT 2 to GPT 3 - Measure the amount of time it took to go from GPT 3 to GPT 4 - Measure the code quality improvement for the same spans. Go ahead. Pick a metric. You'll notice that, not only is GPT-4 really fscking good, it represents a year-over-year improvement that is accelerating. What you are likely looking at is a classic hockey-stick exponential graph. And there is no ceiling yet in sight.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago
> And there is no ceiling yet in sight We are approaching the time when we find out if the human brain uses language encoding as its core mechanism of thought, or if it has any tricks left up its damp, fleshy sleeve.
- 1attice 4y ago
  This would certainly vindicate several fields, 20th century analytic phil among them, with its laser focus on linguistic analysis. It's breathtaking for a philosopher to live through this era. I just wish I wasn't so frightened by the likely practical implications of handing out such a powerful tool-that-can-be-a-weapon (a TTCBAW) to anyone who can pull down a torrent.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> What you are likely looking at is a classic hockey-stick exponential graph. And there is no ceiling yet in sight. Its a pretty ironclad rule that all growth charts that look exponential are really closer to logistic and seem like they are going to go up more rapidly forever until they suddenly flatten out.
- 1attice 4y ago
  Fine, but you missed the second sentence that you quoted. There is no ceiling in sight, so we have no way of knowing how high this curve is likely to go. For now, it approximates exponential. That's bad.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Jensson 4y ago
> - Measure the amount of time it took to go from GPT 2 to GPT 3 1 year. > - Measure the amount of time it took to go from GPT 3 to GPT 4 3 years. > it represents a year-over-year improvement that is accelerating. I don't see how the above shows it is accelerating.
- 1attice 4y ago
  It does show, however, that one needs to read carefully. Please evaluate the code quality metric, as I originally asked. (Your pick.) Go look at GPT2's code.