8 ms·

Alpha Fold is a game changer, but nowhere near the game changer ChatGPT(4) is, even if ChatGPT was only available for the subset of scientists that benefit from

Alpha Fold is a game changer, but nowhere near the game changer ChatGPT(4) is, even if ChatGPT was only available for the subset of scientists that benefit from Alpha Fold. We are literally arguing semantics if this is AGI, and you're comparing it to a bespoke ML model that solves a highly specific domain problem (as unsolvable and impressive as it was).

adammarples 4y ago
The domain is the domain of protein structure, something which potentially has gigantic applications to life. Predicting proteins may yet prove more useful than predicting text.
- theragra 4y ago
  If so, where are application of this? Is it too early?
- visarga 4y ago
  Could be interesting to correlate DNA with text produced by people. Both are self replicating, self evolving languages.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  “Predicting proteins”? I’m a biologist and I can assure you knowing the rough structure of a protein from sequence is nowhere near as important to biology as everyone makes it out to be. It is Nobel prize worthy to be sure but Nobel prizes are awarded once a year not once a century.
misnome 4y ago
> We are literally arguing semantics if this is AGI, And if it isn't? Literally every single argument I've seen towards this being AGI is "We don't know at all how intelligence works, so let's say that this is it!!!!!" > nowhere near the game changer ChatGPT(4) is, even if ChatGPT was only available for the subset of scientists that benefit from Alpha Fold This is utter nonsense. For anyone who actually knows a field, ChatGPT generates unhelpful, plausible-looking nonsense. Conferences are putting up ChatGPT answers about their fields to laugh at because of how misleadingly wrong they are. This is absolutely okay, because it can be a useful tool without being the singularity. I'd sure that in a couple of years time, most of what ChatGPT achieves will be in line with most of the tech industry advances in the past decade - pushing the bottom out of the labor market and actively making the lives of the poorest worse in order to line their own pockets. I really wish people would stop projecting hopes and wishes on top of breathless marketing.
- BlackSwanMan 4y ago
  GPT4 can pass the the neurosurgical medical boards, most of the people laughing at it are typically too dumb to note the difference between 3.5 and 4. >pushing the bottom out of the labor market and actively making the lives of the poorest worse in order to line their own pockets. This makes zero sense. GPT4 has little effect on a janitor or truck driver. It doesn't pick fruit, or wash cars.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    FWIW, as a non-pathologist with a pathologist for a father, I can almost pass the pathology boards when taken as a test in isolation. Most of these tests are very easy for professionals in their fields, and are just a Jacksonian barrier to entry. Being allowed to sit for the test is the hard part, not the test itself. As far as I know, the exception to this is the bar exam, which GPT-4 can also pass, but that exam plays into GPT-4's strengths much more than other professional exams.
    - Quarrel 4y ago
      > the exception to this is the bar exam FWIW, this is more true for CA than most states.
    - defen 4y ago
      What is a Jacksonian barrier to entry? I can't find the phrase "Jacksonian barrier" anywhere else on the internet except in one journal article that talks about barriers against women's participation in the public sphere in Columbia County NY during Andrew Jackson's presidency.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I may have gotten the president wrong (I was 95% sure it's named after Jackson until I Googled it), but the word "Jacksonian" was meant to refer to the addition of bureaucracy to a process to make it cost more to do it, and thus discourage people. I guess I should have said "red tape" instead... Either it's a really obscure usage of the word or I got the president wrong.
Barrin92 4y ago
>We are literally arguing semantics if this is AGI It isn't and nobody with any experience in the field believes this. This is the Alexa / IBM Watson syndrome all over again, people are obsessed with natural language because it's relatable and it grabs the attention of laypeople. Protein folding is a major scientific breakthrough with big implications in biology. People pay attention to ChatGPT because it recites the constitution in pirate English.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  This is like all other rocket companies undermining what spacex is doing as not a big deal. You can keep arguing semantics while they keep putting actual satellites and people into orbit every month. I use chatGPT every day to solve real problems as if it’s my assistant, and most people with actual intelligence I know do as well. People with “experience in the field”, in my opinion can often get a case of sour grapes that they internalize and project with their seeming expertise and go blind to persist some sense of calm to avoid reality.
RandomLensman 4y ago
ChatGPT cannot reason from or apply its knowledge - it is nowhere near AGI. For example, it can describe concepts like risk neutral pricing and replication of derivatives but it cannot apply that logic to show how to replicate something non-trivial (i.e., not repeating well published things).

adammarples 4y ago

The domain is the domain of protein structure, something which potentially has gigantic applications to life. Predicting proteins may yet prove more useful than predicting text.

theragra 4y ago
If so, where are application of this? Is it too early?
visarga 4y ago
Could be interesting to correlate DNA with text produced by people. Both are self replicating, self evolving languages.
ramraj07 4y ago
“Predicting proteins”? I’m a biologist and I can assure you knowing the rough structure of a protein from sequence is nowhere near as important to biology as everyone makes it out to be. It is Nobel prize worthy to be sure but Nobel prizes are awarded once a year not once a century.

misnome 4y ago

> We are literally arguing semantics if this is AGI, And if it isn't? Literally every single argument I've seen towards this being AGI is "We don't know at all how intelligence works, so let's say that this is it!!!!!" > nowhere near the game changer ChatGPT(4) is, even if ChatGPT was only available for the subset of scientists that benefit from Alpha Fold This is utter nonsense. For anyone who actually knows a field, ChatGPT generates unhelpful, plausible-looking nonsense. Conferences are putting up ChatGPT answers about their fields to laugh at because of how misleadingly wrong they are. This is absolutely okay, because it can be a useful tool without being the singularity. I'd sure that in a couple of years time, most of what ChatGPT achieves will be in line with most of the tech industry advances in the past decade - pushing the bottom out of the labor market and actively making the lives of the poorest worse in order to line their own pockets. I really wish people would stop projecting hopes and wishes on top of breathless marketing.

BlackSwanMan 4y ago
GPT4 can pass the the neurosurgical medical boards, most of the people laughing at it are typically too dumb to note the difference between 3.5 and 4. >pushing the bottom out of the labor market and actively making the lives of the poorest worse in order to line their own pockets. This makes zero sense. GPT4 has little effect on a janitor or truck driver. It doesn't pick fruit, or wash cars.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  FWIW, as a non-pathologist with a pathologist for a father, I can almost pass the pathology boards when taken as a test in isolation. Most of these tests are very easy for professionals in their fields, and are just a Jacksonian barrier to entry. Being allowed to sit for the test is the hard part, not the test itself. As far as I know, the exception to this is the bar exam, which GPT-4 can also pass, but that exam plays into GPT-4's strengths much more than other professional exams.
  - Quarrel 4y ago
    > the exception to this is the bar exam FWIW, this is more true for CA than most states.
  - defen 4y ago
    What is a Jacksonian barrier to entry? I can't find the phrase "Jacksonian barrier" anywhere else on the internet except in one journal article that talks about barriers against women's participation in the public sphere in Columbia County NY during Andrew Jackson's presidency.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I may have gotten the president wrong (I was 95% sure it's named after Jackson until I Googled it), but the word "Jacksonian" was meant to refer to the addition of bureaucracy to a process to make it cost more to do it, and thus discourage people. I guess I should have said "red tape" instead... Either it's a really obscure usage of the word or I got the president wrong.

Barrin92 4y ago

>We are literally arguing semantics if this is AGI It isn't and nobody with any experience in the field believes this. This is the Alexa / IBM Watson syndrome all over again, people are obsessed with natural language because it's relatable and it grabs the attention of laypeople. Protein folding is a major scientific breakthrough with big implications in biology. People pay attention to ChatGPT because it recites the constitution in pirate English.

ramraj07 4y ago
This is like all other rocket companies undermining what spacex is doing as not a big deal. You can keep arguing semantics while they keep putting actual satellites and people into orbit every month. I use chatGPT every day to solve real problems as if it’s my assistant, and most people with actual intelligence I know do as well. People with “experience in the field”, in my opinion can often get a case of sour grapes that they internalize and project with their seeming expertise and go blind to persist some sense of calm to avoid reality.

RandomLensman 4y ago

ChatGPT cannot reason from or apply its knowledge - it is nowhere near AGI. For example, it can describe concepts like risk neutral pricing and replication of derivatives but it cannot apply that logic to show how to replicate something non-trivial (i.e., not repeating well published things).