6 ms·

ChatGPT is the silver bullet, you can't convince me otherwise. If the end of deep learning is to achieve artificial intelligence, we had almost achieved it at

ChatGPT is the silver bullet, you can't convince me otherwise. If the end of deep learning is to achieve artificial intelligence, we had almost achieved it at this stage.

kabes 4y ago
Define silver bullet. Because it doesn't really bring us closer to stuff like self driving cars.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  There is an ironic possibility that the poster confused the expression "silver bullet" for something different from "fake solution placing hopes on shiny idols". (Probably - sorry, just analytically - by negating the expression "it is no silver bullet". Process that does not work, since it is the actual silver bullet that does nothing special.) Edit: although, reading better, the later poster reprised the expression, probably ironically, from the original poster. Sorry, I missed that in the original.
  - losvedir 4y ago
    I don't quite understand your comment, but I think you have your definition of "silver bullet" backwards. It means a solution that works incredibly, almost magically, well.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      No, it's just a bit complex, but it depends on use - and today it is for a number of reasons more common to see "silver bullet" for "ineffective but seducing". It is a (non-)"solution" that /is believed/ to «work incredibly, almost magically, well». It works in a fable and not outside. One of the first occurrences of the idea was the response of the Oracle of Delphi to Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander), "With silver arms you may conquer the world". In this case the idea made sense on all planes: Philip understood that he could use bribery to achieve victory, and it worked. But then the idea went on in folklore as a miraculous solution: you "could" use them against spells, then witches, then werewolves, vampires etc. Many reasons may conflate in the whole idea. What happens next is the capillary reach of the scientific mindset, placing silver and the said "evils it cures" in a different place, farther from "dreamlike" perspectives. So, today it is often said a "silver bullet" something that is said to be a "miraculous solution" - but that in reality is just a piece of shiny, alluring metal working well as an excuse to seduce a public in search of hopes, however ill-placed. Populists e.g. are said to have "silver bullets" ready against any sociopolitical illness - they have "solutions" presented as a miracle cure, but they just do not stand scientifically, effectively - though they may be effective in prolonging a career as an elected representative.
      - losvedir 4y ago
        > No, it's just a bit complex, but it depends on use - and today it is for a number of reasons more common to see "silver bullet" for "ineffective but seducing". It is a (non-)"solution" that /is believed/ to «work incredibly, almost magically, well». It works in a fable and not outside. Yes, you're re-asserting that, but I still disagree, at least in my dialect of General American English. Maybe you're in the UK and it's different there? In my experience, you almost always hear it as part of the negative: "X is not a silver bullet". That phrase has your meaning of "ineffective but seducing". The implication then is that the silver bullet is effective. Magically so. Everyone associates it with the only thing that can kill a werewolf. The thing that began this whole inane conversation was the mildly interesting use of "silver bullet" in the positive: > ChatGPT is the silver bullet, you can't convince me otherwise. The poster is taking the "no silver bullet" idiom and flipping it on its head. The "standard" usage would say "ChatGPT is no silver bullet", meaning it's not a magical solution to all problems. By negating it (and using the idiom unusually in the positive), they're saying that it is magically effective and can work on all problems.
        mdp2021 4y ago
        > inane Well, if you find it uninteresting, do not make it happen. I just showed you a bit of history of the expression, including the warning - do not assume that (especially globally) it is used your way. (Yes, if you are Tennessee it may be more frequently one way, in Singapore maybe the opposite...) You write «Everyone associates it with the only thing that can kill a werewolf» - and I am telling you that in fact that covers the slice of the population that also holds that silver bullets are in fact completely ineffective, in spite of the story, although it has consideration among people who mentally live in the world where werewolves roam. > The poster is It is clear what the user did: in fact, posts ago, I noticed that it is «ironic». The poster said "it is a silver bullet", and that is peculiar because some would reply to that "do not forget your magic cloak to approach more confidently", or similar.
        losvedir 4y ago
        Look, there's nothing unusual or ironic about the use of "silver bullet" in either the top level comment or the first response. That's just how the idiom is used. I would be curious if you could offer an example of "silver bullet" used as you're saying some people do. All the examples I can find are the the way I've been saying. For example, the top three Google News hits for "silver bullet": * Be excited about EPR, even if it’s not a silver bullet [0] * Immigration: Silver Bullet for Nursing Shortage? [1] * Offsets Are Not A Silver Bullet [2] In all of these, "silver bullet" could be replaced with "totally effective solution". That's how OP used it as well. You're saying that a "silver bullet" could mean "ineffective but seducing". If that were the case, the headlines would instead be: * Be excited about EPR, because it's not a silver bullet. * Offsets Are A Silver Bullet. I've never seen it used that way. And that's not how the OP used it or the first commenter interpreted it. It's not impossible it's used differently somewhere, if so I'd be curious to know. I know, for example, that "the point is moot" and "let's table the discussion" have opposite meanings in British and American English, for example. [0] https://www.greenbiz.com/article/be-excited-about-epr-even-if-its-not-silver-bullet https://www.greenbiz.com/article/be-excited-about-epr-even-i... [1] https://www.globest.com/2023/04/11/immigration-silver-bullet-for-nursing-shortage/?slreturn=20230315140156 https://www.globest.com/2023/04/11/immigration-silver-bullet... [3] https://eugeneweekly.com/2023/04/06/offsets-are-not-a-silver-bullet/ https://eugeneweekly.com/2023/04/06/offsets-are-not-a-silver...
- SanderNL 4y ago
  It doesn’t? Given all data of surroundings, isn’t “driving” completing the next “token” (action)?
- karmasimida 4y ago
  ChatGPT is AN answer as how to create AI. Simple as that. It works as a natural language parser that works the same as human. It is the holy grail that NLP community trying to find, one mechanism that can be commanded by plain English. If it can program, then it can drive cars. Driving is inherently a low level task comparing to programming, hundreds of millions Americans can drive, far fewer can program. But ChatGPT is just blind at the moment. Next step is to make it see, and walk and use its fingers. Won't be too far away in the future.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > works the same as human Very certainly not, until you show that it has reflection - critical thinking -, which has many times shown not to have. > Simple as that As already expressed, you cannot just dump personal positions "porque [t]e sale de l'alma" (Borges).
    - chaxor 4y ago
      Reflexion*
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        Thanks! It brings us to some checks. But I read > Spelling with -ct- recorded from late 14c., established 18c., by influence of the verb. OED considers the version with -x- to be "the etymological spelling", but Fowler (1926 - «A clear differentiation being out of the question, and the variation of form being without essential significance...») points out that -ct- is usual in the general senses and even technical ones Actually, I would say that 'reflection' is the more proper. 'Reflexion' reflects the French spelling, so it is "«etymological»" in the sense of "post-Hastings 1066" (i.e. tracing the history), but in Latin it is 'flectere' (hence 're-flectere'). "Flectere" is already an action, so "reflection" is proper for the faculty.
        chaxor 4y ago
        Sorry, this was meant to be a semi-sarcastic reference to the paper by Northeastern. They use "Reflexion" in the title. It's a paper about how these systems improve their responses by simply allowing their outputs to be 'reflected upon' by the system. For instance, they are able to improve something like ~60% to ~87% by simply allowing the 'reflection' upon what was just output.
jackblemming 4y ago
It boggles my mind how people can think this when Alexnet stepped on the scene over a decade ago and not much has fundamentally improved since then. OpenAI just said they’re not planning on training GPT-5 for awhile because the scaling trick has hit diminishing returns. This isn’t “AGI is 2 years away”, it’s we’ve milked this advancement as best we can and bigger advancements are going to need a fundamental paradigm shift which usually doesn’t happen overnight. Not to say GPT-4 or vision models aren’t amazingly useful, but they’re no silver bullet. I’ve been using GPT-3 for awhile now and it makes a lot of fundamentally stupid mistakes.
- est31 4y ago
  What about Transformers? And GPT-3 is fundamental improvement to earlier LLMs. Same goes for speech recognition which went from highly parametric to end to end in the last decade. Many other things like stable diffusion, TTS, etc. It's like github's UI. If you use it daily, you maybe notice a little change here or there, but it doesn't disrupt you much. But now if one checks github screenshots from 10 years ago they look so different. Say for example Youtube's auto transcription feature. I remember when it launched, it wasn't that bad but got many things wrong. Now it's really good, still making mistakes but gotten much better.
- dave_sullivan 4y ago
  "Not much" has fundamentally improved since Alexnet??? Honestly half the comments in this thread boggle my mind. What is even the word for someone that is shown something amazing that they don't understand and then dismisses it on completely superficial grounds? Like if I go back in time and show someone a computer and they think it's just a typewriter and who ever needed one of those anyway? It's like ignorance but in the most willfull, dismissive way possible. Gross.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    The straight denialism around what transformer models can do has been very disappointing, though maybe not unsurprising. Acknowledging what that means acknowledging that your world is about to soon change in massive and unpredictable ways and the future you had planned and expected is not going to happen.
mdp2021 4y ago
> you can't convince me otherwise So? Are you trying to make this a poll? > deep learning is to achieve artificial intelligence, we had almost achieved DL has already """achieved""" AI, which was there before the perceptron. In fact, "Artificial Intelligence" is there to solve problems without direct human work, and it has worked pretty well in the past decades in many different domains. This is to say, that our goal has been to have automated problem solvers - that of producing general intelligence (and, before that, general problem solvers) is kind of a different goal.

ChatGPT is the silver bullet, you can't convince me otherwise. If the end of deep learning is to achieve artificial intelligence, we had almost achieved it at this stage.

kabes 4y ago

Define silver bullet. Because it doesn't really bring us closer to stuff like self driving cars.

mdp2021 4y ago
There is an ironic possibility that the poster confused the expression "silver bullet" for something different from "fake solution placing hopes on shiny idols". (Probably - sorry, just analytically - by negating the expression "it is no silver bullet". Process that does not work, since it is the actual silver bullet that does nothing special.) Edit: although, reading better, the later poster reprised the expression, probably ironically, from the original poster. Sorry, I missed that in the original.
- losvedir 4y ago
  I don't quite understand your comment, but I think you have your definition of "silver bullet" backwards. It means a solution that works incredibly, almost magically, well.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    No, it's just a bit complex, but it depends on use - and today it is for a number of reasons more common to see "silver bullet" for "ineffective but seducing". It is a (non-)"solution" that /is believed/ to «work incredibly, almost magically, well». It works in a fable and not outside. One of the first occurrences of the idea was the response of the Oracle of Delphi to Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander), "With silver arms you may conquer the world". In this case the idea made sense on all planes: Philip understood that he could use bribery to achieve victory, and it worked. But then the idea went on in folklore as a miraculous solution: you "could" use them against spells, then witches, then werewolves, vampires etc. Many reasons may conflate in the whole idea. What happens next is the capillary reach of the scientific mindset, placing silver and the said "evils it cures" in a different place, farther from "dreamlike" perspectives. So, today it is often said a "silver bullet" something that is said to be a "miraculous solution" - but that in reality is just a piece of shiny, alluring metal working well as an excuse to seduce a public in search of hopes, however ill-placed. Populists e.g. are said to have "silver bullets" ready against any sociopolitical illness - they have "solutions" presented as a miracle cure, but they just do not stand scientifically, effectively - though they may be effective in prolonging a career as an elected representative.
    - losvedir 4y ago
      > No, it's just a bit complex, but it depends on use - and today it is for a number of reasons more common to see "silver bullet" for "ineffective but seducing". It is a (non-)"solution" that /is believed/ to «work incredibly, almost magically, well». It works in a fable and not outside. Yes, you're re-asserting that, but I still disagree, at least in my dialect of General American English. Maybe you're in the UK and it's different there? In my experience, you almost always hear it as part of the negative: "X is not a silver bullet". That phrase has your meaning of "ineffective but seducing". The implication then is that the silver bullet is effective. Magically so. Everyone associates it with the only thing that can kill a werewolf. The thing that began this whole inane conversation was the mildly interesting use of "silver bullet" in the positive: > ChatGPT is the silver bullet, you can't convince me otherwise. The poster is taking the "no silver bullet" idiom and flipping it on its head. The "standard" usage would say "ChatGPT is no silver bullet", meaning it's not a magical solution to all problems. By negating it (and using the idiom unusually in the positive), they're saying that it is magically effective and can work on all problems.
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        > inane Well, if you find it uninteresting, do not make it happen. I just showed you a bit of history of the expression, including the warning - do not assume that (especially globally) it is used your way. (Yes, if you are Tennessee it may be more frequently one way, in Singapore maybe the opposite...) You write «Everyone associates it with the only thing that can kill a werewolf» - and I am telling you that in fact that covers the slice of the population that also holds that silver bullets are in fact completely ineffective, in spite of the story, although it has consideration among people who mentally live in the world where werewolves roam. > The poster is It is clear what the user did: in fact, posts ago, I noticed that it is «ironic». The poster said "it is a silver bullet", and that is peculiar because some would reply to that "do not forget your magic cloak to approach more confidently", or similar.
        losvedir 4y ago
        Look, there's nothing unusual or ironic about the use of "silver bullet" in either the top level comment or the first response. That's just how the idiom is used. I would be curious if you could offer an example of "silver bullet" used as you're saying some people do. All the examples I can find are the the way I've been saying. For example, the top three Google News hits for "silver bullet": * Be excited about EPR, even if it’s not a silver bullet [0] * Immigration: Silver Bullet for Nursing Shortage? [1] * Offsets Are Not A Silver Bullet [2] In all of these, "silver bullet" could be replaced with "totally effective solution". That's how OP used it as well. You're saying that a "silver bullet" could mean "ineffective but seducing". If that were the case, the headlines would instead be: * Be excited about EPR, because it's not a silver bullet. * Offsets Are A Silver Bullet. I've never seen it used that way. And that's not how the OP used it or the first commenter interpreted it. It's not impossible it's used differently somewhere, if so I'd be curious to know. I know, for example, that "the point is moot" and "let's table the discussion" have opposite meanings in British and American English, for example. [0] https://www.greenbiz.com/article/be-excited-about-epr-even-if-its-not-silver-bullet https://www.greenbiz.com/article/be-excited-about-epr-even-i... [1] https://www.globest.com/2023/04/11/immigration-silver-bullet-for-nursing-shortage/?slreturn=20230315140156 https://www.globest.com/2023/04/11/immigration-silver-bullet... [3] https://eugeneweekly.com/2023/04/06/offsets-are-not-a-silver-bullet/ https://eugeneweekly.com/2023/04/06/offsets-are-not-a-silver...
SanderNL 4y ago
It doesn’t? Given all data of surroundings, isn’t “driving” completing the next “token” (action)?
karmasimida 4y ago
ChatGPT is AN answer as how to create AI. Simple as that. It works as a natural language parser that works the same as human. It is the holy grail that NLP community trying to find, one mechanism that can be commanded by plain English. If it can program, then it can drive cars. Driving is inherently a low level task comparing to programming, hundreds of millions Americans can drive, far fewer can program. But ChatGPT is just blind at the moment. Next step is to make it see, and walk and use its fingers. Won't be too far away in the future.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > works the same as human Very certainly not, until you show that it has reflection - critical thinking -, which has many times shown not to have. > Simple as that As already expressed, you cannot just dump personal positions "porque [t]e sale de l'alma" (Borges).
  - chaxor 4y ago
    Reflexion*
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      Thanks! It brings us to some checks. But I read > Spelling with -ct- recorded from late 14c., established 18c., by influence of the verb. OED considers the version with -x- to be "the etymological spelling", but Fowler (1926 - «A clear differentiation being out of the question, and the variation of form being without essential significance...») points out that -ct- is usual in the general senses and even technical ones Actually, I would say that 'reflection' is the more proper. 'Reflexion' reflects the French spelling, so it is "«etymological»" in the sense of "post-Hastings 1066" (i.e. tracing the history), but in Latin it is 'flectere' (hence 're-flectere'). "Flectere" is already an action, so "reflection" is proper for the faculty.
      - chaxor 4y ago
        Sorry, this was meant to be a semi-sarcastic reference to the paper by Northeastern. They use "Reflexion" in the title. It's a paper about how these systems improve their responses by simply allowing their outputs to be 'reflected upon' by the system. For instance, they are able to improve something like ~60% to ~87% by simply allowing the 'reflection' upon what was just output.

jackblemming 4y ago

It boggles my mind how people can think this when Alexnet stepped on the scene over a decade ago and not much has fundamentally improved since then. OpenAI just said they’re not planning on training GPT-5 for awhile because the scaling trick has hit diminishing returns. This isn’t “AGI is 2 years away”, it’s we’ve milked this advancement as best we can and bigger advancements are going to need a fundamental paradigm shift which usually doesn’t happen overnight. Not to say GPT-4 or vision models aren’t amazingly useful, but they’re no silver bullet. I’ve been using GPT-3 for awhile now and it makes a lot of fundamentally stupid mistakes.

est31 4y ago
What about Transformers? And GPT-3 is fundamental improvement to earlier LLMs. Same goes for speech recognition which went from highly parametric to end to end in the last decade. Many other things like stable diffusion, TTS, etc. It's like github's UI. If you use it daily, you maybe notice a little change here or there, but it doesn't disrupt you much. But now if one checks github screenshots from 10 years ago they look so different. Say for example Youtube's auto transcription feature. I remember when it launched, it wasn't that bad but got many things wrong. Now it's really good, still making mistakes but gotten much better.
dave_sullivan 4y ago
"Not much" has fundamentally improved since Alexnet??? Honestly half the comments in this thread boggle my mind. What is even the word for someone that is shown something amazing that they don't understand and then dismisses it on completely superficial grounds? Like if I go back in time and show someone a computer and they think it's just a typewriter and who ever needed one of those anyway? It's like ignorance but in the most willfull, dismissive way possible. Gross.
- flangola7 4y ago
  The straight denialism around what transformer models can do has been very disappointing, though maybe not unsurprising. Acknowledging what that means acknowledging that your world is about to soon change in massive and unpredictable ways and the future you had planned and expected is not going to happen.

mdp2021 4y ago

> you can't convince me otherwise So? Are you trying to make this a poll? > deep learning is to achieve artificial intelligence, we had almost achieved DL has already """achieved""" AI, which was there before the perceptron. In fact, "Artificial Intelligence" is there to solve problems without direct human work, and it has worked pretty well in the past decades in many different domains. This is to say, that our goal has been to have automated problem solvers - that of producing general intelligence (and, before that, general problem solvers) is kind of a different goal.