6 ms·

> From the script it appears that GPT4 is fully 'aware' that the FTP server is not real Is "this word fits here" now synonymous to "fully aware"?

codetrotter 4y ago
OpenAI are themselves shoring up this kind of anthropomorphization by having ChatGPT respond to queries in a human way. I think it’s fine. We know it’s not really human. But it’s convenient to think of the GPT models as though they are. And like someone said before, perhaps we can think of the GPT models not so much as “artificial intelligence”, but more like a different kind of intelligence from what humans have. With strengths and weaknesses of its own.
KyeRussell 4y ago
I’d like to think that we are making some progress in our conversations about AI, but comments like this really just pull us back. You even ignored the quotes that OP put around ‘aware’. As someone working with GPT-3 day-to-day at $dayjob, these words - usually reserved for sentient beings - are simply put typically the most apt to use in pretty much all contexts other than some sections of an academic paper. The fact that you yourself couldn’t get the sentence to work right is a testament to that. Again, as someone that’s working with and having conversations about this day-to-day, we all find ourselves using these words, first kind of awkwardly, with laughs and air quotes, and we try to mentally reach for the best word to use. Eventually we all just know what we mean, and that’s that. So, if I can ask directly, how do I talk about this online in a way that allows for productive conversations about the very obviously disruptive abilities of LLMs but that still avoids your snark?
bmacho 4y ago
Indeed, "fully 'aware'" is now synonymous to "this word fits here"?
TeMPOraL 4y ago
Probably? I mean, if you were to ask me, why I wrote any of my comments the way I did, half of the time the honest answer would be "because it fits" or "it sounds right". Surely I'm not the only one who's aware they're speaking and writing mostly by generating completions and picking ones that sound best.
- dools 4y ago
  That’s not how it feels to me. The way it feels to me is that I have a fully formed concept almost immediately upon hearing or reading something then I employ language to try and convey the same concept into to someone else’s brain. During that process additional ideas may occur to me, and that may augment the final output.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Do concepts always come to you fully formed? I experience some of what you describe, too, when dealing with ideas I already am familiar with, or explaining them to others. But when I'm trying to work through some novel thoughts, or am engaging in a conversation - including the one that has me writing this comment - I function in the way that's peculiarly similar to LLMs. That is, what pops into my head are words, phrases, sometimes entire sentences (often movie or videogame quotes). I pick one that fits best as an extension of what was already said - the previous words, the previous sentences, the response from the other party - and then repeat with the next completion, and the next, etc., until I feel it's time to stop. I've joked for many years that, based on my personal experience and introspection, human brains at the highest level may just be glorified Markov chains. I sometimes still say that about LLMs - but I do so more as a compliment now. GPT-3 and GPT-4 may be just fancy autocomplete, but so are we. I feel we've brute-forced our way into a turning point in our understanding of what intelligence is and how it works.
    - dools 4y ago
      The concept is always fully formed (or at least SOME concept is fully formed) before I start typing. Like I read your comment. I had thoughts during that process, but I read until the end, then I made a decision about what I thought, and that decision contained all the information that I want to convey in my response. Now: when I am constructing my response, I am of course modulating which words might come next that would best fit into my language model to convey that concept, but the concept is an instantaneous understanding. That instantaneous understanding may change during the process of articulation, but not fundamentally -- I think that any changes during the process of articulation could be considered "elaboration" rather than a reconceptualisation. All the language that I just typed was designed to convey a concept that was more or less instantaneously formed and fully complete prior to my typing anything. The way in which I construct the language to articulate that concept may be very similar to the way in which a LLM constructs its responses, but I think the core difference is that original and instantaneous conceptual understanding of what it is trying to articulate.

codetrotter 4y ago

OpenAI are themselves shoring up this kind of anthropomorphization by having ChatGPT respond to queries in a human way. I think it’s fine. We know it’s not really human. But it’s convenient to think of the GPT models as though they are. And like someone said before, perhaps we can think of the GPT models not so much as “artificial intelligence”, but more like a different kind of intelligence from what humans have. With strengths and weaknesses of its own.

KyeRussell 4y ago

I’d like to think that we are making some progress in our conversations about AI, but comments like this really just pull us back. You even ignored the quotes that OP put around ‘aware’. As someone working with GPT-3 day-to-day at $dayjob, these words - usually reserved for sentient beings - are simply put typically the most apt to use in pretty much all contexts other than some sections of an academic paper. The fact that you yourself couldn’t get the sentence to work right is a testament to that. Again, as someone that’s working with and having conversations about this day-to-day, we all find ourselves using these words, first kind of awkwardly, with laughs and air quotes, and we try to mentally reach for the best word to use. Eventually we all just know what we mean, and that’s that. So, if I can ask directly, how do I talk about this online in a way that allows for productive conversations about the very obviously disruptive abilities of LLMs but that still avoids your snark?

bmacho 4y ago

Indeed, "fully 'aware'" is now synonymous to "this word fits here"?

TeMPOraL 4y ago

Probably? I mean, if you were to ask me, why I wrote any of my comments the way I did, half of the time the honest answer would be "because it fits" or "it sounds right". Surely I'm not the only one who's aware they're speaking and writing mostly by generating completions and picking ones that sound best.

dools 4y ago
That’s not how it feels to me. The way it feels to me is that I have a fully formed concept almost immediately upon hearing or reading something then I employ language to try and convey the same concept into to someone else’s brain. During that process additional ideas may occur to me, and that may augment the final output.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Do concepts always come to you fully formed? I experience some of what you describe, too, when dealing with ideas I already am familiar with, or explaining them to others. But when I'm trying to work through some novel thoughts, or am engaging in a conversation - including the one that has me writing this comment - I function in the way that's peculiarly similar to LLMs. That is, what pops into my head are words, phrases, sometimes entire sentences (often movie or videogame quotes). I pick one that fits best as an extension of what was already said - the previous words, the previous sentences, the response from the other party - and then repeat with the next completion, and the next, etc., until I feel it's time to stop. I've joked for many years that, based on my personal experience and introspection, human brains at the highest level may just be glorified Markov chains. I sometimes still say that about LLMs - but I do so more as a compliment now. GPT-3 and GPT-4 may be just fancy autocomplete, but so are we. I feel we've brute-forced our way into a turning point in our understanding of what intelligence is and how it works.
  - dools 4y ago
    The concept is always fully formed (or at least SOME concept is fully formed) before I start typing. Like I read your comment. I had thoughts during that process, but I read until the end, then I made a decision about what I thought, and that decision contained all the information that I want to convey in my response. Now: when I am constructing my response, I am of course modulating which words might come next that would best fit into my language model to convey that concept, but the concept is an instantaneous understanding. That instantaneous understanding may change during the process of articulation, but not fundamentally -- I think that any changes during the process of articulation could be considered "elaboration" rather than a reconceptualisation. All the language that I just typed was designed to convey a concept that was more or less instantaneously formed and fully complete prior to my typing anything. The way in which I construct the language to articulate that concept may be very similar to the way in which a LLM constructs its responses, but I think the core difference is that original and instantaneous conceptual understanding of what it is trying to articulate.