4 ms·

I get why AI people are at pains to say that GPT-* isn’t AI, and that agi is still a long, difficult way off, I do understand that the distinction is important.

I get why AI people are at pains to say that GPT-* isn’t AI, and that agi is still a long, difficult way off, I do understand that the distinction is important. But ChatGPT has become such a useful tool to help explain a concept or to filter thoughts through I don’t really care if it’s proper AI or just playing pretend. Google search gives me pretty useless results these days, forums are slow and inconsistent to respond. ChatGPT is fast, easy to use, and sometimes incredibly wrong. I can live with that, I’m not using it to drive my car.

teleforce 3y ago
This is exactly my thoughts and feelings after more than 20 years of Googling except that Google is largely still useful as it is. Sooner or later, however, most of the people will use ChatGPT or similar services as a better replacement for Google search or Google on steroids. Before the advent of ChatGPT researchers especially, have been clamoring for better Google search with more contexts, intuitive and relevant feedbacks. With the new ChatGPT (Plus) features introduction for examples web online search and plug-ins, ChatGPT has becoming a very powerful and viable better alternative to Google search.
usaar333 3y ago
AGI is just a poorly defined, moving target. Absent the goals constantly shifting, GPT-3 can be viewed as one, GPT-4 even more so. You can ask it questions about almost anything (at a broad level) and get an answer. That's what makes it general and "intelligent"
- nirav72 3y ago
  >makes it general and "intelligent" Isn't intelligent a matter of perspective? Most people that are critical of GPT-4 wonder if it ever produces anything novel. Since its been trained on existing text created by humans. So it's replicating those patterns in its output. But yes, it has its general purpose use as a tool. But it has its limits. Just the other day, there was an article posted on HA about how LLM's can't handle negation and tend to fall apart. Here is the article. https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-like-chatgpt-are-no-good-at-not-20230512/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-like-chatgpt-are-no-good-a...
- kmoser 3y ago
  You can ask the original ELIZA anything and get an answer but that doesn't make it "intelligent" according to any generally accepted definition of AGI. Regardless of how you define it exactly, AGI means essentially the ability to converse relatively intelligently on any topic. That means an app that tends to spout gibberish when asked a question most humans should be able to answer is, well, not an AGI.

teleforce 3y ago

This is exactly my thoughts and feelings after more than 20 years of Googling except that Google is largely still useful as it is. Sooner or later, however, most of the people will use ChatGPT or similar services as a better replacement for Google search or Google on steroids. Before the advent of ChatGPT researchers especially, have been clamoring for better Google search with more contexts, intuitive and relevant feedbacks. With the new ChatGPT (Plus) features introduction for examples web online search and plug-ins, ChatGPT has becoming a very powerful and viable better alternative to Google search.

usaar333 3y ago

AGI is just a poorly defined, moving target. Absent the goals constantly shifting, GPT-3 can be viewed as one, GPT-4 even more so. You can ask it questions about almost anything (at a broad level) and get an answer. That's what makes it general and "intelligent"

nirav72 3y ago
>makes it general and "intelligent" Isn't intelligent a matter of perspective? Most people that are critical of GPT-4 wonder if it ever produces anything novel. Since its been trained on existing text created by humans. So it's replicating those patterns in its output. But yes, it has its general purpose use as a tool. But it has its limits. Just the other day, there was an article posted on HA about how LLM's can't handle negation and tend to fall apart. Here is the article. https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-like-chatgpt-are-no-good-at-not-20230512/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-like-chatgpt-are-no-good-a...
kmoser 3y ago
You can ask the original ELIZA anything and get an answer but that doesn't make it "intelligent" according to any generally accepted definition of AGI. Regardless of how you define it exactly, AGI means essentially the ability to converse relatively intelligently on any topic. That means an app that tends to spout gibberish when asked a question most humans should be able to answer is, well, not an AGI.