7 ms·

There is the possibility of API upgrades at OpenAI flipping this from "not dangerous" to "dangerous". If the AI just needs some amount of intelligence to becom

There is the possibility of API upgrades at OpenAI flipping this from "not dangerous" to "dangerous". If the AI just needs some amount of intelligence to become dangerous, then it may cross that threshold suddenly - and with OpenAI developers unaware that their next round of changes will be automatically deployed to an autonomous agent and with the auto-GPT runners unaware that new changes may substantially increase the power of the model.

roflyear 4y ago
I'm not really sure why we are assuming that these language models ever can have any form of intelligence? To me, this is just like saying "we don't know if the latest CPU released by intel will enable Linux to become intelligent"
- visarga 4y ago
  Have you seen what they can do? /s
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Yeah next time someone says this to me in earnest I'm going to lose my mind.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. You can have GPT-4 take SAT tests, play Chess, write poetry, predict what will happen in different social scenarios, answer theory of mind questions, ask questions, solve programming puzzles, etc. There are some measures that GPTs are clearly below human levels, some where they are far beyond, and some where they are within human range. The question as to whether or not language models have any form of intelligence has been definitively answered - yes, they can and do - by existence proof. What definition or description of intelligence do you use such that you doubt that language models could have it? Would you have had this same definition in the year 2010?
  - mjr00 4y ago
    > Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. This is not "obvious" in any sense of the word. At best, it's highly debatable.
    - mythrwy 4y ago
      Would you settle for "behave exactly as if they had some form of intelligence"? Because from where I sit it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
      - mjr00 4y ago
        > Would you settle for "behave exactly as if they had some form of intelligence"? Sure, it behaves as if it has some form of intelligence in the sense that it can take external input, perform actions in reaction to this input, and produce outputs dependent on the input. This historically has been known as a computer program.
        pixl97 4y ago
        You're a computer program?
        krainboltgreene 4y ago
        Never fails that when a techbro has been told LLMs aren't what they think they fall back to a field they certainly have more authority on: The human brain/intelligence.
        ALittleLight 4y ago
        The issue here is that the "LLMs have intelligence" side of the argument can lay out a simple mainstream conception of intelligence (general problem solving) and explain directly how LLMs meet this definition. The other side of the argument, at least here in this thread, seems to be an empty insult or two and... Nothing else? Again, just say what you think intelligence is and why you think LLMs don't have it. If you can't do that then you have no business expressing an opinion on the subject. You really aren't expressing an opinion at all.

roflyear 4y ago

I'm not really sure why we are assuming that these language models ever can have any form of intelligence? To me, this is just like saying "we don't know if the latest CPU released by intel will enable Linux to become intelligent"

visarga 4y ago
Have you seen what they can do? /s
- roflyear 4y ago
  Yeah next time someone says this to me in earnest I'm going to lose my mind.
ALittleLight 4y ago
Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. You can have GPT-4 take SAT tests, play Chess, write poetry, predict what will happen in different social scenarios, answer theory of mind questions, ask questions, solve programming puzzles, etc. There are some measures that GPTs are clearly below human levels, some where they are far beyond, and some where they are within human range. The question as to whether or not language models have any form of intelligence has been definitively answered - yes, they can and do - by existence proof. What definition or description of intelligence do you use such that you doubt that language models could have it? Would you have had this same definition in the year 2010?
- mjr00 4y ago
  > Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. This is not "obvious" in any sense of the word. At best, it's highly debatable.
  - mythrwy 4y ago
    Would you settle for "behave exactly as if they had some form of intelligence"? Because from where I sit it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
    - mjr00 4y ago
      > Would you settle for "behave exactly as if they had some form of intelligence"? Sure, it behaves as if it has some form of intelligence in the sense that it can take external input, perform actions in reaction to this input, and produce outputs dependent on the input. This historically has been known as a computer program.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        You're a computer program?
        krainboltgreene 4y ago
        Never fails that when a techbro has been told LLMs aren't what they think they fall back to a field they certainly have more authority on: The human brain/intelligence.
        ALittleLight 4y ago
        The issue here is that the "LLMs have intelligence" side of the argument can lay out a simple mainstream conception of intelligence (general problem solving) and explain directly how LLMs meet this definition. The other side of the argument, at least here in this thread, seems to be an empty insult or two and... Nothing else? Again, just say what you think intelligence is and why you think LLMs don't have it. If you can't do that then you have no business expressing an opinion on the subject. You really aren't expressing an opinion at all.