3 ms·

If you tried GPT4, you probably understood it's not about feeding all the code in the world. GPT4 analyzes and "understands" your code and will answer based on

If you tried GPT4, you probably understood it's not about feeding all the code in the world. GPT4 analyzes and "understands" your code and will answer based on this. Clearly, it will read the variable names and make deductions based on this. It will actually read the comments, the function names and make decisions based on this. And it knows the rules of the language. I mean, I'm writing this because this is what I've witnessed since the time I spent playing with it. The problem I've seen is that, maybe like the author has been writing, it's making sh*t up. That's not untrue, sometimes I didn't give it all dependent classes and it tried to think sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly what those were (such as method signatures, instance members, etc.) I wish it would have asked me some details rather than trying to figure things out. The guys at OpenAI have still a lot to do, but the current status is very impressive

blibble 4y ago
it is entirely about feeding it all the code in the world it doesn't understand anything, it doesn't make deductions it's a probability model, and I understand how it's implemented perfectly well, thank you
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  No you obviously don't lol
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  Even view it as a simple probability model, you don’t need a million Python repos. The massive amount of English text + 1,000 repos + your codebase is very powerful. You can see this because you can make up a language, give it some examples and it’s surprisingly good.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  Does a chess engine “understand” the position? If you define “understanding” as the ability to think like a human then Stockfish is obviously much worse at that. If you define understanding as the ability to choose the correct move, then Stockfish understands the position much better than any human. The point being, you can choose to laden the word “understand” with the meaning of human-like thinking, in which case humans will always be superior by definition. Or you can choose a “many ways to Rome” definition of understanding that is purely focused on results. Large language models understand language in their own way. Currently their results are inferior to humans’ but one day the results may be superior.

blibble 4y ago

it is entirely about feeding it all the code in the world it doesn't understand anything, it doesn't make deductions it's a probability model, and I understand how it's implemented perfectly well, thank you

famouswaffles 4y ago
No you obviously don't lol
travisjungroth 4y ago
Even view it as a simple probability model, you don’t need a million Python repos. The massive amount of English text + 1,000 repos + your codebase is very powerful. You can see this because you can make up a language, give it some examples and it’s surprisingly good.
zarzavat 4y ago
Does a chess engine “understand” the position? If you define “understanding” as the ability to think like a human then Stockfish is obviously much worse at that. If you define understanding as the ability to choose the correct move, then Stockfish understands the position much better than any human. The point being, you can choose to laden the word “understand” with the meaning of human-like thinking, in which case humans will always be superior by definition. Or you can choose a “many ways to Rome” definition of understanding that is purely focused on results. Large language models understand language in their own way. Currently their results are inferior to humans’ but one day the results may be superior.