4 ms·

> it is not skilled in any tasks other than that for which it is designed. But it wasn't designed. It's not a computer program, where one can make confident pr

by fl7305 4y ago

> it is not skilled in any tasks other than that for which it is designed. But it wasn't designed. It's not a computer program, where one can make confident predictions about its limitations based on the source code. It's a very large black box. It was trained on guessing the next word. Does that fact alone prove that it cannot have evolved certain internal structures during the training? Do you claim that an artificial neural network with trillions of neurons can never be intelligent, no matter the structure? Or is the claim that this particular neural network with trillions of neurons is not intelligent? If so, what is the reasoning? > It is not smart "Not smart" = "not able to reason intelligently". Is that a falsifiable claim? What would the empirical test look like that would show us if the claim is correct or not? Look, I realize that "GPT-4 is intelligent" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. But I think we're starting to see such extraordinary evidence, illustrated by the examples below. https://openai.com/research/gpt-4 https://openai.com/research/gpt-4 (For instance, the "Visual inputs" section) Microsoft AI research: Many convincing examples, summarized with: "The central claim of our work is that GPT-4 attains a form of general intelligence, indeed showing sparks of artificial general intelligence. This is demonstrated by its core mental capabilities (such as reasoning, creativity, and deduction), its range of topics on which it has gained expertise (such as literature, medicine, and coding), and the variety of tasks it is able to perform (e.g., playing games, using tools, explaining itself, ...)." https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712

agentultra 4y ago
> It's a very large black box. It was trained on guessing the next word. Does that fact alone prove that it cannot have evolved certain internal structures during the training? Yes. There is interesting work to formalize these black boxes to be able to connect what was generated back to its inputs. There’s no need to ascribe any belief that they can evolve, modify themselves, or spontaneously develop intelligence. As far as I’m aware no man made machine has ever exhibited the ability to evolve. > Do you claim that an artificial neural network with trillions of neurons can never be intelligent, no matter the structure? If, by structure, you mean some algorithm and memory layout in a modern computer I think this sounds like a reasonable claim. NN, RNN, etc are super, super cool. But they’re not magic. And what I’m arguing in this thread is that people who don’t understand the maths and research are making wild claims about AGI that are not justified. > Look, I realize that "GPT-4 is intelligent" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. That’s the crux of it.
- fl7305 4y ago
  > There’s no need to ascribe any belief that they can evolve, modify themselves, or spontaneously develop intelligence. But neural networks clearly evolve and are modified during training. Otherwise they would never get any better than a random collection of weights and biases, right? Is the claim then that an artificial neural network can never be trained in such a way that it will exhibit intelligent behavior? >> Do you claim that an artificial neural network with trillions of neurons can never be intelligent, no matter the structure? > If, by structure, you mean some algorithm and memory layout in a modern computer I think this sounds like a reasonable claim. Yes, that's what I mean. Is your claim that no Turing machine can be intelligent? >> Look, I realize that "GPT-4 is intelligent" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. > That’s the crux of it. And I provided links to such evidence. Is there a rebuttal? If we're saying that GPT-4 is not intelligent, there must be questions that intelligent humans can answer that GPT-4 can't, right? What is the type of logical problem one can give GPT-4 that it cannot solve, but most humans will?
  - agentultra 4y ago
    > Is the claim then that an artificial neural network can never be trained in such a way that it will exhibit intelligent behavior? I think it’s not likely a NN can be trained to exhibit any kind of autonomous intelligence. Science has good models and theories of what intelligence is, what constitutes consciousness, and these models are continuing to evolve based on what we find in nature. I don’t doubt that we can train NN, RNN, and deep learning NN to specific tasks that plausibly emulate or exceed human abilities. That we have these deep learning systems that can learn supervised and unsupervised is super cool. And again, fully explainable maths that anyone with enough education and patience can understand. I’m interested in seeing some of these algorithms formalized and maybe even adding automated theorem proving capabilities to them in the future. But in none of these cases do I believe these systems are intelligent, conscious, or capable of autonomous thought like any organism or system we know of. They’re just programs we can execute on a computer that perform a particular task we designed them to perform. Yes, it can generate some impressive pictures and text. It can be useful for all kinds of applications. But it’s not a living, breathing, thinking, autonomous organism. It’s a program that generates a bunch of numbers and strings. But when popular media starts calling ChatGPT “intelligent,” we’re performing a mental leap here that also absolves the people employing LLM’s from responsibility for how they’re used. ChatGPT isn’t going to I take your job. Capitalists who don’t want to pay people to do work are going to lay off workers and not replace them because the few workers that remain can do more of the work with ChatGPT. Society isn’t threatened by ChatGPT becoming self aware and deciding it hates humans. It cannot even decide such things. It is threatened by scammers who have a tool that can generate lots of plausible sounding social media accounts to make a fake application for a credit card or to socially engineer a call centre rep into divulging secrets.
chlorion 4y ago
>But it wasn't designed. It's not a computer program, where one can make confident predictions about its limitations based on the source code. It definitely is exactly that. It's not any more special than any other program that you can write. I am not totally sure that what you describe could ever exist at all. What makes this program "magic" compared to any other program exactly? There is no physical difference between it and a "regular" program. Both of them are a bunch of source code that gets compiled into an executable and ran by the underlying OS and hardware. There is nothing physically different between it and other software. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  No, machine learning models are not programs and they are not compiled from source code. They are the output of non-deterministic matrix multiplication operations which take encoded data as the input. They can then be used as a black box by an actual program to calculate useful outputs. The program which takes your text and runs a final calculation on it against the machine learning model to get an output is a program. But that program is not doing anything interesting. All the interesting work was done when the model was cooked up in a black-box non-deterministic process by some other GPUs somewhere else well before it ever came near the inference program.
  - fl7305 4y ago
    Thanks for saving me the time to write the same reply :) To expand a bit: I can write simple image processing code that will find lines in an image. But I can't write the code to perform OCR (optical character recognition). However, in the early 90's, I wrote a simple C program that trained a neural network to perform OCR. It was a toy project that took a weekend. There are many things where I could train a neural network to do something, but couldn't write explicit source code to perform the same task. If you (chlorion) look up "genetic algorithms", you'll find many clear examples of where very impressive algorithms were evolved using a simple training program.
  - fl7305 4y ago

by fl7305 4y ago

agentultra 4y ago

> It's a very large black box. It was trained on guessing the next word. Does that fact alone prove that it cannot have evolved certain internal structures during the training? Yes. There is interesting work to formalize these black boxes to be able to connect what was generated back to its inputs. There’s no need to ascribe any belief that they can evolve, modify themselves, or spontaneously develop intelligence. As far as I’m aware no man made machine has ever exhibited the ability to evolve. > Do you claim that an artificial neural network with trillions of neurons can never be intelligent, no matter the structure? If, by structure, you mean some algorithm and memory layout in a modern computer I think this sounds like a reasonable claim. NN, RNN, etc are super, super cool. But they’re not magic. And what I’m arguing in this thread is that people who don’t understand the maths and research are making wild claims about AGI that are not justified. > Look, I realize that "GPT-4 is intelligent" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. That’s the crux of it.

fl7305 4y ago
> There’s no need to ascribe any belief that they can evolve, modify themselves, or spontaneously develop intelligence. But neural networks clearly evolve and are modified during training. Otherwise they would never get any better than a random collection of weights and biases, right? Is the claim then that an artificial neural network can never be trained in such a way that it will exhibit intelligent behavior? >> Do you claim that an artificial neural network with trillions of neurons can never be intelligent, no matter the structure? > If, by structure, you mean some algorithm and memory layout in a modern computer I think this sounds like a reasonable claim. Yes, that's what I mean. Is your claim that no Turing machine can be intelligent? >> Look, I realize that "GPT-4 is intelligent" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. > That’s the crux of it. And I provided links to such evidence. Is there a rebuttal? If we're saying that GPT-4 is not intelligent, there must be questions that intelligent humans can answer that GPT-4 can't, right? What is the type of logical problem one can give GPT-4 that it cannot solve, but most humans will?
- agentultra 4y ago
  > Is the claim then that an artificial neural network can never be trained in such a way that it will exhibit intelligent behavior? I think it’s not likely a NN can be trained to exhibit any kind of autonomous intelligence. Science has good models and theories of what intelligence is, what constitutes consciousness, and these models are continuing to evolve based on what we find in nature. I don’t doubt that we can train NN, RNN, and deep learning NN to specific tasks that plausibly emulate or exceed human abilities. That we have these deep learning systems that can learn supervised and unsupervised is super cool. And again, fully explainable maths that anyone with enough education and patience can understand. I’m interested in seeing some of these algorithms formalized and maybe even adding automated theorem proving capabilities to them in the future. But in none of these cases do I believe these systems are intelligent, conscious, or capable of autonomous thought like any organism or system we know of. They’re just programs we can execute on a computer that perform a particular task we designed them to perform. Yes, it can generate some impressive pictures and text. It can be useful for all kinds of applications. But it’s not a living, breathing, thinking, autonomous organism. It’s a program that generates a bunch of numbers and strings. But when popular media starts calling ChatGPT “intelligent,” we’re performing a mental leap here that also absolves the people employing LLM’s from responsibility for how they’re used. ChatGPT isn’t going to I take your job. Capitalists who don’t want to pay people to do work are going to lay off workers and not replace them because the few workers that remain can do more of the work with ChatGPT. Society isn’t threatened by ChatGPT becoming self aware and deciding it hates humans. It cannot even decide such things. It is threatened by scammers who have a tool that can generate lots of plausible sounding social media accounts to make a fake application for a credit card or to socially engineer a call centre rep into divulging secrets.

chlorion 4y ago

>But it wasn't designed. It's not a computer program, where one can make confident predictions about its limitations based on the source code. It definitely is exactly that. It's not any more special than any other program that you can write. I am not totally sure that what you describe could ever exist at all. What makes this program "magic" compared to any other program exactly? There is no physical difference between it and a "regular" program. Both of them are a bunch of source code that gets compiled into an executable and ran by the underlying OS and hardware. There is nothing physically different between it and other software. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...

MacsHeadroom 4y ago
No, machine learning models are not programs and they are not compiled from source code. They are the output of non-deterministic matrix multiplication operations which take encoded data as the input. They can then be used as a black box by an actual program to calculate useful outputs. The program which takes your text and runs a final calculation on it against the machine learning model to get an output is a program. But that program is not doing anything interesting. All the interesting work was done when the model was cooked up in a black-box non-deterministic process by some other GPUs somewhere else well before it ever came near the inference program.
- fl7305 4y ago
  Thanks for saving me the time to write the same reply :) To expand a bit: I can write simple image processing code that will find lines in an image. But I can't write the code to perform OCR (optical character recognition). However, in the early 90's, I wrote a simple C program that trained a neural network to perform OCR. It was a toy project that took a weekend. There are many things where I could train a neural network to do something, but couldn't write explicit source code to perform the same task. If you (chlorion) look up "genetic algorithms", you'll find many clear examples of where very impressive algorithms were evolved using a simple training program.
- fl7305 4y ago