3 ms·

> But it's very rare when someone is impressed when the model is generating text based in something they do understand deeply. This statement sounds out of dat

by jstx1 3y ago

> But it's very rare when someone is impressed when the model is generating text based in something they do understand deeply. This statement sounds out of date. And you can see this sentiment a lot on HN. I don’t know if the people who say this haven’t tried GPT-4 or they have and are just stubbornly refusing to change their mind about something when presented with new evidence.

grayhatter 3y ago
> s haven’t tried GPT-4 or they have and are just stubbornly refusing to change their mind about something when presented with new evidence. Have you considered that the evidence just isn't convincing yet? If you view popular llms as text prediction machines, they are in fact much better than spell check or auto correct from a few years ago. But if you actually ask it to solve the problem with nuance it will not use nuance. That's the part that would impress me. As a recent example if you ask chat GPT how to use ffmpeg to slice out a video. and you tell it that you only want 3 seconds of video. somebody who deeply understands how ffmpeg works, (or even someone who deeply read the documentation) would point out that you have to be aware that it can only cut to keyframes. so if the keyframe is not aligned to the time you ask for you will not get the video that you expect. another example ask it to play 20 questions with you, it will cheat at the end. even if you give it very specific instructions it still is unable to follow them to the fair conclusion of the game. (or it will make a mistake and understanding about some of the semantics of the question, but I don't fault it for a difference in context) I'd caution you that just because you're impressed for the subjects that you understand deeply does not mean that chat gpt is good at all subjects. and therefore I assert that it is disrespectful to be so dismissive of people who have different opinions than yours. I believe the default should be to assume good faith rather than dismissiveness "they just don't understand"
- jstx1 3y ago
  ChatGPT with GPT-4 with just "how to use ffmpeg to slice out a video" pasted directly from your comment without any additional prompting or clarification brought up your point about the keyframes. So whatever you think you're criticising isn't the same thing that I'm using. Kind of demonstrates my point that you're either using an older version or choosing to ignore evidence for some reason.
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    It doesn't impress me that once corrected (which it has been multiple times), that it stops giving wrong answers. If it was able to detect and supply nuance to something novel. Then I might be impressed. BTW: when I posed this question > how do I use ffmpeg to slice out a video, I only want 3 seconds of video from the middle to chatgpt4, it did not mention anything about accounting for keyframes. So I'm not sure what version you're using, but it's not the one I have access to :/ Another reason to assume good faith, because you seem to have access to something that I don't. And, this is now (well before this specific conversation) an expired example because openai's model has been specifically training on this nuance, and thus even if it never made a mistake around it, it still wouldn't be impressive to me; simply because this nuance was directly added to it's model. Remember, we're talking about if the abilities of available models are impressive, what would be impressive to me is if they're able to generalize well enough to know things they haven't been directly taught.
    - ftxbro 3y ago
      I watched some flat earthers in debates, and they seemed to revel in their freedom to not be impressed by their opponents arguments. It seemed like a kind of rush for them, like a kind of power trip, that was more intense the stronger their opponents arguments. Like a kind of 'no matter how strong your argument is you can't make me agree with you' power trip.
      - grayhatter 3y ago
        I don't mean to imply that I'm attempting to not be impressed. Before writing the comment you replied to, I asked a friend who is enamored by the new abilities how I would know my mental model for how it works, and what it's able to do is wrong. If I'm wrong, missing something, or making a mistake. I'd like to know about it. Outside of that, the context for the whole discussion is > Why do so many assume we’re on the cusp of super-intelligent AI? And how "smart" text to text engines can become. My argument is actually pretty close to yours. People that are impressed, want to be. They're looking for ways to be impressed. Just like you think I'm looking for ways not to be impressed. Which, even if I am, it still should be easy to convince me (or others) that super-intelligent AI is coming soon to an API near you! Right now, the LLMs that are the new hotness, aren't super intelligent. They're not domain experts, they can't play a simple game that children love without cheating. They're easily distracted if you know how to word a question correctly. While it's cool they can generate language that seems to be true, and useful. It's not as useful as what already exists. (For the context that I care about) And, all of these examples are markers of below average intelligence. What's the argument that would convince me that very soon, we'll take something stupid and make it hyper-intelligent? Because that's no something I've seen happen before. Still, all of that said. Your comment that seems clearly meant to be insulting, doesn't actually make any other point. Did you mean to imply something else? Or was it just an attempt to throw insults by pretending to make an observation? Because the conversation is about if people should be impressed. Which when it comes down to it an opinion, are opinions bad?
- sharemywin 3y ago
  I had it extract some general rules from this page and pasted them below: https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/26302/ffmpeg-cutting-3-seconds-at-the-beginning-of-a-video-leaves-5-seconds-blank https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/26302/ffmpeg-cutti... USER given the following general rules: 1. The issue described in the text occurs when cutting a video between keyframes, resulting in blank video with original sound. 2. Potential solutions include overlaying the copied part with a few seconds of the re-encoded original, seeking to an earlier frame, finding the previous keyframe and clipping from that, or re-encoding the whole clip. 3. FFmpeg does not have a built-in feature to automatically resolve this issue. Are any of these rules applicable to the question below? "how do I use ffmpeg to slice out a video. and I only want 3 seconds of video." ASSISTANT Enter an assistant message here. ASSISTANT Yes, rule 1 and rule 3 are applicable to the question. The issue of cutting a video between keyframes may apply when slicing out a 3-second video using FFmpeg, and FFmpeg does not have a built-in feature to automatically resolve this issue. USER Given that what is the answer to the question ASSISTANT To use FFmpeg to slice out a 3-second video, you can use the following command: ```bash ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -ss START_TIME -t 3 -c:v libx264 -c:a copy output.mp4 ``` Replace `START_TIME` with the timestamp (in the format `hh:mm:ss`) from which you want to start the 3-second clip. For example, if you want to start at 1 minute and 30 seconds, the command would be: ```bash ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -ss 00:01:30 -t 3 -c:v libx264 -c:a copy output.mp4 ``` However, if you encounter an issue with blank video caused by keyframe cutting, you may need to seek to an earlier frame, find the previous keyframe, or re-encode the whole clip as mentioned in the provided rules. It seems to be able to find the applicable rules and apply them.
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you thought I meant. Or what this is supposed to show. If you tell your text prediction engine to make sure to account for keyframes. It's not impressive that it responds with how to account for them. I know it can use ffmpeg, I haven't seen it attempt to account for well known edge cases, or caveats they way a real expert trying to be helpful would.
- richk449 3y ago
  It’s amazing how easily people are fooled into thinking something is intelligent. I met Stephen Hawking once and asked him how to slice video with ffmpeg. He didn’t have a clue! Obviously he isn’t an intelligent person. Yet so many people think he is smart.
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    Your strawman argument isn't impressive either, even chatGPT knows how to avoid them! But I'll play along! Didn't happen to try something different, like playing 20 questions? Or something else? Because I've already given those as other examples for simple tasks that I don't think a banal text prediction algorithm could do.
- hnfong 3y ago
  I think the issue is just that people are using different words to mean the same thing. If we get precise, take for example what you said earlier: > it's slightly better than the mean across all topics. Most people who can do "better than average across all topics" usually aren't considered "dumb" at all. They might even be considered impressive, albeit being a jack of all trades might be a career disadvantage. In these discussions I see (generally) a strong sentiment among the naysayers along the lines of "because ChatGPT is so overhyped, I've decided to play it cool and downplay it as a reaction to the hype". And hence the other comment suggesting that you're intentionally not allowing yourself to be impressed by the state of the art achievements. IMHO there's too much arguing over how we should subjectively "feel" about the new tech. Everyone should be free to "feel" whatever they want to feel about the state of things, whether being impressed or not.

by jstx1 3y ago

grayhatter 3y ago

> s haven’t tried GPT-4 or they have and are just stubbornly refusing to change their mind about something when presented with new evidence. Have you considered that the evidence just isn't convincing yet? If you view popular llms as text prediction machines, they are in fact much better than spell check or auto correct from a few years ago. But if you actually ask it to solve the problem with nuance it will not use nuance. That's the part that would impress me. As a recent example if you ask chat GPT how to use ffmpeg to slice out a video. and you tell it that you only want 3 seconds of video. somebody who deeply understands how ffmpeg works, (or even someone who deeply read the documentation) would point out that you have to be aware that it can only cut to keyframes. so if the keyframe is not aligned to the time you ask for you will not get the video that you expect. another example ask it to play 20 questions with you, it will cheat at the end. even if you give it very specific instructions it still is unable to follow them to the fair conclusion of the game. (or it will make a mistake and understanding about some of the semantics of the question, but I don't fault it for a difference in context) I'd caution you that just because you're impressed for the subjects that you understand deeply does not mean that chat gpt is good at all subjects. and therefore I assert that it is disrespectful to be so dismissive of people who have different opinions than yours. I believe the default should be to assume good faith rather than dismissiveness "they just don't understand"

jstx1 3y ago
ChatGPT with GPT-4 with just "how to use ffmpeg to slice out a video" pasted directly from your comment without any additional prompting or clarification brought up your point about the keyframes. So whatever you think you're criticising isn't the same thing that I'm using. Kind of demonstrates my point that you're either using an older version or choosing to ignore evidence for some reason.
- grayhatter 3y ago
  It doesn't impress me that once corrected (which it has been multiple times), that it stops giving wrong answers. If it was able to detect and supply nuance to something novel. Then I might be impressed. BTW: when I posed this question > how do I use ffmpeg to slice out a video, I only want 3 seconds of video from the middle to chatgpt4, it did not mention anything about accounting for keyframes. So I'm not sure what version you're using, but it's not the one I have access to :/ Another reason to assume good faith, because you seem to have access to something that I don't. And, this is now (well before this specific conversation) an expired example because openai's model has been specifically training on this nuance, and thus even if it never made a mistake around it, it still wouldn't be impressive to me; simply because this nuance was directly added to it's model. Remember, we're talking about if the abilities of available models are impressive, what would be impressive to me is if they're able to generalize well enough to know things they haven't been directly taught.
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    I watched some flat earthers in debates, and they seemed to revel in their freedom to not be impressed by their opponents arguments. It seemed like a kind of rush for them, like a kind of power trip, that was more intense the stronger their opponents arguments. Like a kind of 'no matter how strong your argument is you can't make me agree with you' power trip.
    - grayhatter 3y ago
      I don't mean to imply that I'm attempting to not be impressed. Before writing the comment you replied to, I asked a friend who is enamored by the new abilities how I would know my mental model for how it works, and what it's able to do is wrong. If I'm wrong, missing something, or making a mistake. I'd like to know about it. Outside of that, the context for the whole discussion is > Why do so many assume we’re on the cusp of super-intelligent AI? And how "smart" text to text engines can become. My argument is actually pretty close to yours. People that are impressed, want to be. They're looking for ways to be impressed. Just like you think I'm looking for ways not to be impressed. Which, even if I am, it still should be easy to convince me (or others) that super-intelligent AI is coming soon to an API near you! Right now, the LLMs that are the new hotness, aren't super intelligent. They're not domain experts, they can't play a simple game that children love without cheating. They're easily distracted if you know how to word a question correctly. While it's cool they can generate language that seems to be true, and useful. It's not as useful as what already exists. (For the context that I care about) And, all of these examples are markers of below average intelligence. What's the argument that would convince me that very soon, we'll take something stupid and make it hyper-intelligent? Because that's no something I've seen happen before. Still, all of that said. Your comment that seems clearly meant to be insulting, doesn't actually make any other point. Did you mean to imply something else? Or was it just an attempt to throw insults by pretending to make an observation? Because the conversation is about if people should be impressed. Which when it comes down to it an opinion, are opinions bad?
sharemywin 3y ago
I had it extract some general rules from this page and pasted them below: https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/26302/ffmpeg-cutting-3-seconds-at-the-beginning-of-a-video-leaves-5-seconds-blank https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/26302/ffmpeg-cutti... USER given the following general rules: 1. The issue described in the text occurs when cutting a video between keyframes, resulting in blank video with original sound. 2. Potential solutions include overlaying the copied part with a few seconds of the re-encoded original, seeking to an earlier frame, finding the previous keyframe and clipping from that, or re-encoding the whole clip. 3. FFmpeg does not have a built-in feature to automatically resolve this issue. Are any of these rules applicable to the question below? "how do I use ffmpeg to slice out a video. and I only want 3 seconds of video." ASSISTANT Enter an assistant message here. ASSISTANT Yes, rule 1 and rule 3 are applicable to the question. The issue of cutting a video between keyframes may apply when slicing out a 3-second video using FFmpeg, and FFmpeg does not have a built-in feature to automatically resolve this issue. USER Given that what is the answer to the question ASSISTANT To use FFmpeg to slice out a 3-second video, you can use the following command: ```bash ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -ss START_TIME -t 3 -c:v libx264 -c:a copy output.mp4 ``` Replace `START_TIME` with the timestamp (in the format `hh:mm:ss`) from which you want to start the 3-second clip. For example, if you want to start at 1 minute and 30 seconds, the command would be: ```bash ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -ss 00:01:30 -t 3 -c:v libx264 -c:a copy output.mp4 ``` However, if you encounter an issue with blank video caused by keyframe cutting, you may need to seek to an earlier frame, find the previous keyframe, or re-encode the whole clip as mentioned in the provided rules. It seems to be able to find the applicable rules and apply them.
- grayhatter 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you thought I meant. Or what this is supposed to show. If you tell your text prediction engine to make sure to account for keyframes. It's not impressive that it responds with how to account for them. I know it can use ffmpeg, I haven't seen it attempt to account for well known edge cases, or caveats they way a real expert trying to be helpful would.
richk449 3y ago
It’s amazing how easily people are fooled into thinking something is intelligent. I met Stephen Hawking once and asked him how to slice video with ffmpeg. He didn’t have a clue! Obviously he isn’t an intelligent person. Yet so many people think he is smart.
- grayhatter 3y ago
  Your strawman argument isn't impressive either, even chatGPT knows how to avoid them! But I'll play along! Didn't happen to try something different, like playing 20 questions? Or something else? Because I've already given those as other examples for simple tasks that I don't think a banal text prediction algorithm could do.
hnfong 3y ago
I think the issue is just that people are using different words to mean the same thing. If we get precise, take for example what you said earlier: > it's slightly better than the mean across all topics. Most people who can do "better than average across all topics" usually aren't considered "dumb" at all. They might even be considered impressive, albeit being a jack of all trades might be a career disadvantage. In these discussions I see (generally) a strong sentiment among the naysayers along the lines of "because ChatGPT is so overhyped, I've decided to play it cool and downplay it as a reaction to the hype". And hence the other comment suggesting that you're intentionally not allowing yourself to be impressed by the state of the art achievements. IMHO there's too much arguing over how we should subjectively "feel" about the new tech. Everyone should be free to "feel" whatever they want to feel about the state of things, whether being impressed or not.