3 ms·

"In a distinctly non-humanlike way". You can learn a lot about how a system works from how it fails and in this case it fails in a way consistent with the token

"In a distinctly non-humanlike way". You can learn a lot about how a system works from how it fails and in this case it fails in a way consistent with the token-prediction approach we know it is using rather than the model-forming approach some are claiming has "emerged" from that. It doesn't show the performance on a marginally more complex example that you would expect from a human with the same performance on the slightly simpler one, which is precisely the point Rodney Brooks is making. It applies equally to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. But I didn't respond to debate the nature or merits of LLMs. It's been done to death and I wouldn't expect to change your mind. I'm just offering myself as a counterexample to your assertion that everyone (emphasis yours) that is unconvinced by some of the claims being made about LLM capabilities (I dislike your "sides" characterisation) is using GPT-3.5.

pixl97 3y ago
>"In a distinctly non-humanlike way". Over the long term this is going to be a primary alignment problem of AI as it becomes more capable. What is my reasoning behind that? Because humans suck, or at least our constraints that we're presented with do. All your input systems to your brain are constantly behind 'now' and the vast majority of data you could input is getting dropped on the ground. For example if I'm making a robotic visual input system, it makes nearly zero sense for it to behave like human vision. Your 20/20 visual acuity area is tiny and only by moving your eyes around rapidly and then by your brain lying to you, do we have a high resolution view on the world. And that is just an example of one of those weird human behaviors we know about. It's likely we'll find more of these shortcuts over time because AI won't take them.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  What other system could possibly work? Even a faster system would still be slightly behind “reality”. Things must happen before they can be perceived.

pixl97 3y ago

>"In a distinctly non-humanlike way". Over the long term this is going to be a primary alignment problem of AI as it becomes more capable. What is my reasoning behind that? Because humans suck, or at least our constraints that we're presented with do. All your input systems to your brain are constantly behind 'now' and the vast majority of data you could input is getting dropped on the ground. For example if I'm making a robotic visual input system, it makes nearly zero sense for it to behave like human vision. Your 20/20 visual acuity area is tiny and only by moving your eyes around rapidly and then by your brain lying to you, do we have a high resolution view on the world. And that is just an example of one of those weird human behaviors we know about. It's likely we'll find more of these shortcuts over time because AI won't take them.

ChatGTP 3y ago
What other system could possibly work? Even a faster system would still be slightly behind “reality”. Things must happen before they can be perceived.