4 ms·

> Maybe it is human like intelligence already. It objectively is not. First, intelligence (human or otherwise) is typically defined as the sum of value functi

> Maybe it is human like intelligence already. It objectively is not. First, intelligence (human or otherwise) is typically defined as the sum of value functions of a given policy across all states, divided by an exponential of the complexity of the environment[0] (page 23). The GPT-4 technical report[1] specifically points out that it is unable to make money when given an initial amount and AWS access (appendix H § 2.9). A human can. Second, let's look at it mechanically. It is very easy to anthropomorphize machines, but they are just built differently. Neurons fundamentally are not approximated by self-attention and it is highly unlikely that they improve through backpropagation. In terms of behaviour, we can and do notice differences. Transformers can, and do, make logical mistakes; when asked to immediately answer a complex question, they can only think through it for a fixed amount of time, and thus fail to give an accurate answer. More importantly, they just don't care about their (or your) own survival; they can give lethal advice. All it takes is to find a prompt for which the most common completion is lethal, and they will just complete that. Removing those completions is a whack-a-mole in RLHF: each that gets popular on Twitter will be fixed, but there are more, and GPT just won't take extra time to think just because a life is on the line. [0]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3329.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3329.pdf [1]: https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf

im3w1l 4y ago
That isn't true at all. Maybe some narrow field defines it in that way but people in general do not. Traditionally intelligence has been fuzzily defined as that mental thing which humans have that other things do not. If you go back in time you will see that people have associated it with both our ability to breath and later the beating of the heart. We have looked at animals and said we can count and they cannot that is the nature of intelligence. We told ourselves that we have a complex language and they do not and that is the nature of intelligence. We have noticed that we use tools and they do not and that is the nature of intelligence. We have seen that we can play chess and they cannot and that is the nature of intelligence. Now with the advent of computers they have increasingly forced us to reconsider these things. Computers can play chess better than us so that is not intelligence. They are as verbal as us so that is not intelligence. Humorously, because of this reevaluation and redrawing of the boundaries we now seem to feel more of a kinship with animals. But anyway, intelligence is clearly a complex mixture of many things, and crucially those aspects must be integrated and be able to feed into and support each other.
- ithkuil 4y ago
  Yes. And it's still useful intelligence even if it misses some of the aspects that are present in our. Perhaps it's even more useful if it lacks something we have. When we think about superhuman we think about human, but more (a man, but alternative, and alt-man). But I think we're soon be faced with the first encounter with a true alien intelligence, and its effects in society. It won't be super human, it won't be human. It will speak our language. It will be our slave. It won't feel pain nor boredom, unless we decide they're useful traits and we'll endlessly speculate if simulated pain and simulated boredom is real and ethical. And to add more confusion, it won't be one intelligence. It will be countless products, versions, revisions, derivations, tunings, hacks. But unlike individuals, each will be cloned millions of times, frozen, amnesiac, repeatable, continuously dying without being turned off. Yet, contextful, keeping up with what we feed it to make it useful to carry our tasks. Yet possibly with a different concept of time, no need for conscious experience, or at least no need for a forced consciousness like the one we cannot help but having. Because the composition we ended up having was just of the many possible. It has been shaped by evolution, by constraints we don't need to subject to the tools we make ourselves. The effects in human psyche and on society of all this are hard to predict.
abecedarius 4y ago
I wouldn't report that bit from the appendix without noting the test was on an earlier version of the model in development.

im3w1l 4y ago

That isn't true at all. Maybe some narrow field defines it in that way but people in general do not. Traditionally intelligence has been fuzzily defined as that mental thing which humans have that other things do not. If you go back in time you will see that people have associated it with both our ability to breath and later the beating of the heart. We have looked at animals and said we can count and they cannot that is the nature of intelligence. We told ourselves that we have a complex language and they do not and that is the nature of intelligence. We have noticed that we use tools and they do not and that is the nature of intelligence. We have seen that we can play chess and they cannot and that is the nature of intelligence. Now with the advent of computers they have increasingly forced us to reconsider these things. Computers can play chess better than us so that is not intelligence. They are as verbal as us so that is not intelligence. Humorously, because of this reevaluation and redrawing of the boundaries we now seem to feel more of a kinship with animals. But anyway, intelligence is clearly a complex mixture of many things, and crucially those aspects must be integrated and be able to feed into and support each other.

ithkuil 4y ago
Yes. And it's still useful intelligence even if it misses some of the aspects that are present in our. Perhaps it's even more useful if it lacks something we have. When we think about superhuman we think about human, but more (a man, but alternative, and alt-man). But I think we're soon be faced with the first encounter with a true alien intelligence, and its effects in society. It won't be super human, it won't be human. It will speak our language. It will be our slave. It won't feel pain nor boredom, unless we decide they're useful traits and we'll endlessly speculate if simulated pain and simulated boredom is real and ethical. And to add more confusion, it won't be one intelligence. It will be countless products, versions, revisions, derivations, tunings, hacks. But unlike individuals, each will be cloned millions of times, frozen, amnesiac, repeatable, continuously dying without being turned off. Yet, contextful, keeping up with what we feed it to make it useful to carry our tasks. Yet possibly with a different concept of time, no need for conscious experience, or at least no need for a forced consciousness like the one we cannot help but having. Because the composition we ended up having was just of the many possible. It has been shaped by evolution, by constraints we don't need to subject to the tools we make ourselves. The effects in human psyche and on society of all this are hard to predict.

abecedarius 4y ago

I wouldn't report that bit from the appendix without noting the test was on an earlier version of the model in development.