3 ms·
I think your article is a worthy read and has some fun examples. I'm not so sure I agree with your conclusion though. The limitations you pose both in your arti
by nicpottier 4y ago
I think your article is a worthy read and has some fun examples. I'm not so sure I agree with your conclusion though. The limitations you pose both in your article and here are real but already have answers in some cases. For one equipping GPT with upgrades for various tasks helps tremendously, IE, Wolfram Alpha for math, wikipedia to refresh its memory on facts etc.. I think you pointed out a really interesting edge case for the goat puzzle but also showed that with different words it CAN reason correctly but trusts it's memory more (and I correctly).
I think you are setting far too high a bar with "majority of information worker tasks". My wild ass guess is that with some thoughtful design and focus as it stands today GPT-4 could do 25% of tasks (or make workers 25% more efficient). The economic impacts of that are vast and I'm not particularly optimistic about who will benefit most from them. That's what the fuss is about IMO, not that we have some kind of AGI on our hands, which is far too high a bar.
- danaris 4y ago> For one equipping GPT with upgrades for various tasks helps tremendously, IE, Wolfram Alpha for math, wikipedia to refresh its memory on facts etc.. Which is interesting in terms of what we can do practically for now, but I don't think it says anything about GPT's capability as an AI agent. All it says is that humans are good at hooking together individual specialist agents to pass off tasks to each other (which only works as long as those individual specialist agents continue to work the same way—not a guarantee when they're all owned by different organizations!).