5 ms·

GPT-2 as step toward general intelligence (2019)

78 points by savanaly 4y ago

turtleyacht 4y ago
And GPT-3 (2020): https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/10/the-obligatory-gpt-3-post/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/10/the-obligatory-gpt-3-p...
- quadcore 4y ago
  What was 3.5 about?
  - turtleyacht 4y ago
    For the above, I tried Google search with site:slatestarcodex.com gpt-4 But only found one for GPT-3 as the author's follow-up.
    - jglamine 4y ago
      Slatestarcodex shut down before GPT-4 came out. His new blog is astralcodexten.substack.com and has lots of posts in GPT-4.
      - turtleyacht 4y ago
        Ohh, thank-you for that! Here is an updated search: site:astralcodexten.substack.com gpt-4 I see an article as recent as 6 days ago: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/half-an-hour-before-dawn-in-san-francisco https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/half-an-hour-before-da...
  - habitue 4y ago
    3.5 was the gpt-3 pretrained model plus instruction tuning and rlhf
johnfn 4y ago
I remember reading this back in 2019. It was the first article that really made me pay attention to GPT. The bits about making acronyms and poor counting as second-order behaviors really jumped out at me at the time. It's remarkable how well the article has aged - all the bits about "wow, look, it can kinda sorta try to summarize an article if you prompt it the right way" obviously all became insanely more relevant with GPT3 and GPT4. Same with the bits about translation and how it seemed like it could sorta write a poem. Still a good read, and scary that it was written only 4 years ago.
- dmonitor 4y ago
  Back in 2020 there was a gpt-based text adventure game called AI Dungeon that got real popular. It'd be cool to check out what that experience is like with the current iteration of the technology
  - braymundo 4y ago
    It still exists at https://play.aidungeon.io https://play.aidungeon.io
  - abj 4y ago
    I'm working on a current iteration of an AI dungeon text based experience with AI illustrations and narration. If you're interested you can take a look https://twitch.tv/ai_voicequest https://twitch.tv/ai_voicequest
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - vintermann 4y ago
    Yes, I remember that... It was shockingly good for its time. However, the author, a young Mormon CS student fresh out of college, had done a couple of questionable things. First, he'd fine-tuned on selected stories from an online community. I don't remember its name, it wasn't AO3, but it was kind of the same, in that some of the material was - well, if it had been images it would have been illegal. Not only had he not asked permission for this, but it meant that the model would often introduce risky material even if the user wasn't fishing for it. And a good deal of users were fishing for it. When this came out, the founder threw his users under the bus pretty hard.
graycat 4y ago
AGI -- artificial general intelligence? With the efforts currently getting the most attention in the tech news, are we on the way to AGI? Gee, I worked in artificial intelligence the last time. Wrote code, published papers, gave talks. My view at the time and since is the same -- that work had no promise of progress toward AGI. For what I've seen about the current efforts, for whatever utility has been achieved, it appears that the output is based on borrowing, distilling, abstracting from the input of what has already been done and published. Soooo, we could consider questions with no published answers or at least answers rarely published and now not easy to find. Here are three such: (1) I'll return to just a plane geometry puzzle question I encountered as college freshman: By classic Euclidean construction, construct a triangle ABC with point D on AB and point E on BC so that the lengths AD = DE = EC. (2) In the Kuhn-Tucker conditions of nonlinear optimization, are the Kuhn-Tucker and Zangwill constraint qualifications independent? (3) Do the wave functions of quantum mechanics form a Hilbert space? Physics texts commonly claim "Yes" but with the usual pure math definition of a Hilbert space as a "complete inner product space" the answer is "No". In what is published, mostly the physics texts ignore the pure math definition and the pure math texts ignore the quantum mechanics wave function examples -- so a clean answer is not easy to find in the usual published material. More generally, for a good pure mathematician about to publish some good, new results, before publishing, ask that question to current AI. Maybe for an easier source of questions, just pick some of the more difficult exercises from some graduate texts in pure math. Correct solutions have not commonly been published, and some of the exercises require some understanding of the math in the text and some ingenuity. Here's another chance: Once when I was teaching computer science at Georgetown University, as a final exam question I gave the code for quick sort where I had inserted an error -- the question was to find and correct the error. So far that error and its correction may never have been published.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  [dead]
- lordnacho 4y ago
  Wait a minute, do people have to be able to solve those problems to be considered intelligent in the AGI sense? My guess is there's about 8B people who wouldn't pass that bar. Also aren't there loads of lower level math questions that are just as unique? A quadratic equation with large random numbers would be easily solved by a high schooler yet not be in the dataset verbatim. Or perhaps a proof of some geometry thing that is a corollary of some well known proof, eg I came across one earlier: it's well known that a cord subtending an angle on the circle has the double angle from the centre. Now prove that if you see two angles where one is the double of the other and they open towards the same line segment, you can draw a circle where the smaller angle is on the circle and the double is at the centre, and the line segment is a cord of the circle. Anyway what exactly is the bar for intelligence? There's lots of people who can't do one task or another, but we don't think of them as not intelligent.
thomastjeffery 4y ago
Personification is so easily applied, and so incredibly misleading. It's fascinating how much information we manage to encode into text: so much more than the language itself we intentionally wrote. Unfortunately, by personifying the model, we create an expectation that it will eventually start applying specific text patterns on purpose instead of simply continuing its core behavior: to implicitly restructure continuations along the patterns that humans have written into text.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  What's freaks me out even more is that it doesn't seem to be stopping. The better the models get, the more people personify them. It seems the ability to do language intersections with personhood both in our psyche and in the extrapolation of current trends.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    The better models get, the more conversation is to be had about them. The problem is that nearly every single narrative has already personified LLMs. What else can a person do but continue following the narratives that were presented to them? > It seems the ability to do language You highlighted the key word: "do". Every person is capable of "do". That's a significant part of what we are. An LLM has no concept of "do". An LLM only models.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      > Every person is capable of "do". That's a significant part of what we are. Right, and what is/are the constitutive element(s) of doing? What is the ontologogy of "do-ing" and is it an essential characteristic of personhood? Secondly, how do we acquire this ontological framework? What are its origin, and how has it changed throughout history or has it been static throughout the human experience?
      - thomastjeffery 4y ago
        Ontology is constructive. Ontology is explicit. These qualities represent an approach for language understanding that is the inverse of inference, which is the approach LLMs take. Somehow, humans manage to do both: we remember the narratives we have heard or experienced, and we hallucinate new ones. We seem to navigate that dataset in an implicit way, but we construct speech and writing in an explicit way.
nr2x 4y ago
Very well aged, thanks for sharing.

78 points by savanaly 4y ago

And GPT-3 (2020): https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/10/the-obligatory-gpt-3-post/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/10/the-obligatory-gpt-3-p...

quadcore 4y ago
What was 3.5 about?
- turtleyacht 4y ago
  For the above, I tried Google search with site:slatestarcodex.com gpt-4 But only found one for GPT-3 as the author's follow-up.
  - jglamine 4y ago
    Slatestarcodex shut down before GPT-4 came out. His new blog is astralcodexten.substack.com and has lots of posts in GPT-4.
    - turtleyacht 4y ago
      Ohh, thank-you for that! Here is an updated search: site:astralcodexten.substack.com gpt-4 I see an article as recent as 6 days ago: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/half-an-hour-before-dawn-in-san-francisco https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/half-an-hour-before-da...
- habitue 4y ago
  3.5 was the gpt-3 pretrained model plus instruction tuning and rlhf

johnfn 4y ago

I remember reading this back in 2019. It was the first article that really made me pay attention to GPT. The bits about making acronyms and poor counting as second-order behaviors really jumped out at me at the time. It's remarkable how well the article has aged - all the bits about "wow, look, it can kinda sorta try to summarize an article if you prompt it the right way" obviously all became insanely more relevant with GPT3 and GPT4. Same with the bits about translation and how it seemed like it could sorta write a poem. Still a good read, and scary that it was written only 4 years ago.

dmonitor 4y ago
Back in 2020 there was a gpt-based text adventure game called AI Dungeon that got real popular. It'd be cool to check out what that experience is like with the current iteration of the technology
- braymundo 4y ago
  It still exists at https://play.aidungeon.io https://play.aidungeon.io
- abj 4y ago
  I'm working on a current iteration of an AI dungeon text based experience with AI illustrations and narration. If you're interested you can take a look https://twitch.tv/ai_voicequest https://twitch.tv/ai_voicequest
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- vintermann 4y ago
  Yes, I remember that... It was shockingly good for its time. However, the author, a young Mormon CS student fresh out of college, had done a couple of questionable things. First, he'd fine-tuned on selected stories from an online community. I don't remember its name, it wasn't AO3, but it was kind of the same, in that some of the material was - well, if it had been images it would have been illegal. Not only had he not asked permission for this, but it meant that the model would often introduce risky material even if the user wasn't fishing for it. And a good deal of users were fishing for it. When this came out, the founder threw his users under the bus pretty hard.

graycat 4y ago

AGI -- artificial general intelligence? With the efforts currently getting the most attention in the tech news, are we on the way to AGI? Gee, I worked in artificial intelligence the last time. Wrote code, published papers, gave talks. My view at the time and since is the same -- that work had no promise of progress toward AGI. For what I've seen about the current efforts, for whatever utility has been achieved, it appears that the output is based on borrowing, distilling, abstracting from the input of what has already been done and published. Soooo, we could consider questions with no published answers or at least answers rarely published and now not easy to find. Here are three such: (1) I'll return to just a plane geometry puzzle question I encountered as college freshman: By classic Euclidean construction, construct a triangle ABC with point D on AB and point E on BC so that the lengths AD = DE = EC. (2) In the Kuhn-Tucker conditions of nonlinear optimization, are the Kuhn-Tucker and Zangwill constraint qualifications independent? (3) Do the wave functions of quantum mechanics form a Hilbert space? Physics texts commonly claim "Yes" but with the usual pure math definition of a Hilbert space as a "complete inner product space" the answer is "No". In what is published, mostly the physics texts ignore the pure math definition and the pure math texts ignore the quantum mechanics wave function examples -- so a clean answer is not easy to find in the usual published material. More generally, for a good pure mathematician about to publish some good, new results, before publishing, ask that question to current AI. Maybe for an easier source of questions, just pick some of the more difficult exercises from some graduate texts in pure math. Correct solutions have not commonly been published, and some of the exercises require some understanding of the math in the text and some ingenuity. Here's another chance: Once when I was teaching computer science at Georgetown University, as a final exam question I gave the code for quick sort where I had inserted an error -- the question was to find and correct the error. So far that error and its correction may never have been published.

sacrosancty 4y ago
[dead]
lordnacho 4y ago
Wait a minute, do people have to be able to solve those problems to be considered intelligent in the AGI sense? My guess is there's about 8B people who wouldn't pass that bar. Also aren't there loads of lower level math questions that are just as unique? A quadratic equation with large random numbers would be easily solved by a high schooler yet not be in the dataset verbatim. Or perhaps a proof of some geometry thing that is a corollary of some well known proof, eg I came across one earlier: it's well known that a cord subtending an angle on the circle has the double angle from the centre. Now prove that if you see two angles where one is the double of the other and they open towards the same line segment, you can draw a circle where the smaller angle is on the circle and the double is at the centre, and the line segment is a cord of the circle. Anyway what exactly is the bar for intelligence? There's lots of people who can't do one task or another, but we don't think of them as not intelligent.

thomastjeffery 4y ago

Personification is so easily applied, and so incredibly misleading. It's fascinating how much information we manage to encode into text: so much more than the language itself we intentionally wrote. Unfortunately, by personifying the model, we create an expectation that it will eventually start applying specific text patterns on purpose instead of simply continuing its core behavior: to implicitly restructure continuations along the patterns that humans have written into text.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
What's freaks me out even more is that it doesn't seem to be stopping. The better the models get, the more people personify them. It seems the ability to do language intersections with personhood both in our psyche and in the extrapolation of current trends.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  The better models get, the more conversation is to be had about them. The problem is that nearly every single narrative has already personified LLMs. What else can a person do but continue following the narratives that were presented to them? > It seems the ability to do language You highlighted the key word: "do". Every person is capable of "do". That's a significant part of what we are. An LLM has no concept of "do". An LLM only models.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    > Every person is capable of "do". That's a significant part of what we are. Right, and what is/are the constitutive element(s) of doing? What is the ontologogy of "do-ing" and is it an essential characteristic of personhood? Secondly, how do we acquire this ontological framework? What are its origin, and how has it changed throughout history or has it been static throughout the human experience?
    - thomastjeffery 4y ago
      Ontology is constructive. Ontology is explicit. These qualities represent an approach for language understanding that is the inverse of inference, which is the approach LLMs take. Somehow, humans manage to do both: we remember the narratives we have heard or experienced, and we hallucinate new ones. We seem to navigate that dataset in an implicit way, but we construct speech and writing in an explicit way.

nr2x 4y ago

Very well aged, thanks for sharing.