4 ms·

From "ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web" to "What Kind of Mind Does ChatGPT Have?" in the New Yorker within a couple of months gives a sense of how fast thing

by ftxbro 4y ago

From "ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web" to "What Kind of Mind Does ChatGPT Have?" in the New Yorker within a couple of months gives a sense of how fast things are changing. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-...

sho_hn 4y ago
Have you read the articles? They don't seem that incongruent. It's also nice for a publication to have space for more than one take. Most things are multi-faceted. As for the HN community bits, fun reference to our very own tptacek.
- ftxbro 4y ago
  I read the first one on internet archive but I was only commenting on the title of the second one. Maybe someone will post an internet archive link I don't know how to get it. > It's also nice for a publication to have space for more than one take. It's true I'm glad they are giving it another shot. By the way, by far the most insightful one I found was https://generative.ink/posts/simulators/ https://generative.ink/posts/simulators/ but I will definitely read the 'what kind of mind' article when it's available.
  - raybb 4y ago
    https://archive.ph/9Impl https://archive.ph/9Impl
pottspotts 4y ago
I strongly disagree with Cal on most of his points here; he effectively recapitulates the "Its just guessing the next token" argument. In his example, he explains that ChatGPT couldn't possibly understand how to remove a PB&J from a VCR, but asking GPT what to do discredits this analogy almost entirely. It is true that GPT doesn't have servos with feedback or other hardware to remove a sandwich itself, but it can certainly explain the process including how to clean the leftover residue and follows the details by suggestion you seek out a professional technician. In the same article he admits ChatGPT is immensely complex and that "any number of humans" could not reproduce the rules by which it works; but then goes on to assure the reader that is naive and is not a threat to their jobs or safety. This seems really disingenuous to me given he's a professor of computer science at a respected university. This kind of cynicism, that you might call naive, leads readers to put aside concerns about safety.

by ftxbro 4y ago

sho_hn 4y ago

Have you read the articles? They don't seem that incongruent. It's also nice for a publication to have space for more than one take. Most things are multi-faceted. As for the HN community bits, fun reference to our very own tptacek.

ftxbro 4y ago
I read the first one on internet archive but I was only commenting on the title of the second one. Maybe someone will post an internet archive link I don't know how to get it. > It's also nice for a publication to have space for more than one take. It's true I'm glad they are giving it another shot. By the way, by far the most insightful one I found was https://generative.ink/posts/simulators/ https://generative.ink/posts/simulators/ but I will definitely read the 'what kind of mind' article when it's available.
- raybb 4y ago
  https://archive.ph/9Impl https://archive.ph/9Impl

pottspotts 4y ago

I strongly disagree with Cal on most of his points here; he effectively recapitulates the "Its just guessing the next token" argument. In his example, he explains that ChatGPT couldn't possibly understand how to remove a PB&J from a VCR, but asking GPT what to do discredits this analogy almost entirely. It is true that GPT doesn't have servos with feedback or other hardware to remove a sandwich itself, but it can certainly explain the process including how to clean the leftover residue and follows the details by suggestion you seek out a professional technician. In the same article he admits ChatGPT is immensely complex and that "any number of humans" could not reproduce the rules by which it works; but then goes on to assure the reader that is naive and is not a threat to their jobs or safety. This seems really disingenuous to me given he's a professor of computer science at a respected university. This kind of cynicism, that you might call naive, leads readers to put aside concerns about safety.