4 ms·

I’m saying that people in my circle have been asking what they think are novel questions and getting interesting answers, only to find out that very similar con

I’m saying that people in my circle have been asking what they think are novel questions and getting interesting answers, only to find out that very similar content exists on websites we know are in the training set. That’s not intelligence that’s computers having better memory than humans. Useful, certainly, but hardly skynet.

cjbprime 4y ago
I don't think you're being clear about whether the questions were novel. If you discover your question was uncreative, surely e.g. some details, wording, facts, names, or numbers inside the question can be changed to defeat a model that is answering it from memory? If you're saying that it is not possible to change the details enough to avoid the model being able to answer that type of question, I think you are admitting that the model has learned a generalized ability to answer questions of that class, and is not actually using its memory to answer at all. I don't care about whether it learned that generalized ability from seeing examples of the question and answer, which it then deduced an algorithm for and generalized -- that's how most people learn most things.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  The asker thought they were. They were not. The internet is big and human memories are not. As an aside, I’m really starting to hate these threads on here, people are constantly reading words that aren’t there in search of gotcha-it’s-skynet. It’s not. It’s just pattern matching and randomness with a giant amount of information encoded.
  - cjbprime 4y ago
    > As an aside, I’m really starting to hate these threads on here. I'm not sure what to say, other than that if you'd like to have less frustrating conversations, you could do better than showing up with hearsay where someone asked a question they thought was unique, but it wasn't, and it can't be modified to be unique and then asked again, and you aren't willing to tell us what it was, and possibly don't know yourself. It is not possible to have a serious conversation about your claim, and that's not because it is being intentionally misunderstood. > skynet You're the only person mentioning skynet. The conversation is about a ridiculous claim made up-thread that GPT-4 cannot reason or understand anything, which is disprovable within a few minutes of using it thoughtfully.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      This is the exact type of unserious wish-reading I’m talking about. Do better.

cjbprime 4y ago

I don't think you're being clear about whether the questions were novel. If you discover your question was uncreative, surely e.g. some details, wording, facts, names, or numbers inside the question can be changed to defeat a model that is answering it from memory? If you're saying that it is not possible to change the details enough to avoid the model being able to answer that type of question, I think you are admitting that the model has learned a generalized ability to answer questions of that class, and is not actually using its memory to answer at all. I don't care about whether it learned that generalized ability from seeing examples of the question and answer, which it then deduced an algorithm for and generalized -- that's how most people learn most things.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Godel_unicode 4y ago
The asker thought they were. They were not. The internet is big and human memories are not. As an aside, I’m really starting to hate these threads on here, people are constantly reading words that aren’t there in search of gotcha-it’s-skynet. It’s not. It’s just pattern matching and randomness with a giant amount of information encoded.
- cjbprime 4y ago
  > As an aside, I’m really starting to hate these threads on here. I'm not sure what to say, other than that if you'd like to have less frustrating conversations, you could do better than showing up with hearsay where someone asked a question they thought was unique, but it wasn't, and it can't be modified to be unique and then asked again, and you aren't willing to tell us what it was, and possibly don't know yourself. It is not possible to have a serious conversation about your claim, and that's not because it is being intentionally misunderstood. > skynet You're the only person mentioning skynet. The conversation is about a ridiculous claim made up-thread that GPT-4 cannot reason or understand anything, which is disprovable within a few minutes of using it thoughtfully.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    This is the exact type of unserious wish-reading I’m talking about. Do better.