5 ms·

Despite his claim in the article, Bryan Caplan is absolutely not known for giving tough exams that test for deep understanding. He's known for the opposite. Th

Despite his claim in the article, Bryan Caplan is absolutely not known for giving tough exams that test for deep understanding. He's known for the opposite. The fact that GPT-4 can pass his tests says much more about the tests than about the capabilities of GPT-4. Indeed, GPT-4 failed Steven E. Landsburg's exam with a miserable score of 4/90, and the remarkable performance oon Caplan's exam fails to replicate on random economics exams of random universities. (NB this post does not mean that ChatGPT cannot improve, or that it's not impressive as is. It serves to put Caplan's self-aggrandizement in context.)

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
Was the model allowed to use chain of thought and so on when it was evaluated?
p-e-w 3y ago
> The fact that GPT-4 can pass his tests says much more about the tests than about the capabilities of GPT-4. "Deep Blue beating Kasparov shows that ultimately, chess is just brute force calculation..." "Stable Diffusion 'art' being indistinguishable from human art to most people shows how little most people know about art..." "ChatGPT fooling people into thinking they're talking to another human shows that those people weren't paying attention, so the Turing test is actually useless for determining..." "I mean, I know that everyone used to say that doing X means being intelligent, but now that software has done X, it becomes clear that..." What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? What does it have to do for people to not retroactively downplay it by invoking mechanistic pseudo-explanations?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- carschno 3y ago
  > What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? This is actually the core of the debate. The answer is that there is no real criterion because we do not understand intelligence. Or, put differently, the one-dimensional understanding of intelligence we typically entertain is a simplification. This is very inconvenient so we just pretend intelligence was a well-defined concept. That in turn leads to all kinds of confusion and pointless arguments as you have pointed out.
  - palata 3y ago
    You mean IQ tests are not meaningful? Many will be disappointed :).
    - melagonster 3y ago
      this is a famous common misunderstanding, people is trying to stop it spread, but the work is difficult.
    - lamp987 3y ago
      They strongly predict various other things, therefore they are meaningful. Them being imperfect does not imply them being meaningless. That would be a low-IQ leap in logic, so to speak.
  - belorn 3y ago
    While there is not definitive criterion for intelligent there is a lot of intuition. For example, I can find a book to be very intelligently written, but at the same time the book itself is not intelligent. No matter how clever answers it has to complicated questions, the book is still just an inanimate object created by a human. The definition of intelligence has to be stretched quite far in order to bypass our intuition on this. We see similar situations when people anthropomorphize animals, or ask questions like do plants have feelings. Biology research can look at neurons and DNA sequences and find all kind of similarities to humans, but it still requires a bit of a jump when we start applying human philosophy concepts to non-humans. I find it easier to look at it as metaphors. ChatGPT has intelligence similar to how the planet has an intelligence , or how the internet is like a brain with every single connected device their neurons.
  - pulvinar 3y ago
    Is the average human intelligent? If I had to choose between an average human or GPT4 to help me with my work, I would choose GPT4. Seems many people think of intelligence like they think of magic. Once they learn how the trick is done, it’s no longer magic.
    - deleted 3y ago
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent?" For me, AGI. Intelligence is a very complex problem, we tended to meassure it by extreme outliers, evolution did not optimize fore. Like abstract math. Machines clearly are better at everything with calculations. A criterium we reserved for "intelligence". But "simple" things like understanding what a rock is, are still too hard for AI. They can reproduce and recombine some text snippets about rocks, but they do not understand, what a rock is. Or anything as far as I am aware. So they are clearly useful and do things, we described as intelligenz when humans are doing it. But human intelligence is still superior as it is a general intelligence.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    > They can reproduce and recombine some text snippets about rocks, but they do not understand, what a rock is. What is the difference between "recombin[ing] some text snippets about rocks", and understanding what a rock is? I'm not asking philosophically. I'm asking how you can tell the two apart. (BTW, transformer LLMs do not operate by recombining text snippets.)
    - palata 3y ago
      > I am not asking philosophically. That is a philosophical question, though... To me, it sounds like this: "How can I prove that I 'exist'? I'm not asking philosophically, I'm just asking how to do it".
  - kingkongjaffa 3y ago
    Your rock thing gets to the heart of the issue, LLM’s are a statistical mimic of what an actual intelligence might say.
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      An actual intelligence is just a matter of the architecture and compute power though, right?
  - moffkalast 3y ago
- worrycue 3y ago
  > What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? What does it have to do for people to not retroactively downplay it by invoking mechanistic pseudo-explanations? When it’s capabilities are no longer a proper subset of an average competent human’s?
  - carlmr 3y ago
    >When it’s capabilities are no longer a proper subset of an average competent human’s? Interesting, I'd say that it's definitely already the case with the current iterations. The average human can't write as well as ChatGPT, or speak as many languages, or translate between them. The average human can't code , even if often subtly wrong, in most programming languages. It's definitely not a proper subset of average human intelligence anymore.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      Good point. My criteria is bad. Technically speaking, Microsoft Excel's capabilities aren't a proper subset of an average competent human's either. Perhaps, When an average competent human's capabilities within their field are a subset of the AI's (for all fields of interest). is a better criteria. Basically if an AI is going to be a doctor, I want it to at least match the average doctor in capability. What I'm concern about are blind spots that the AI might have that the average human (within their field) doesn't. A jetliner pilot AI is worthless even if it can do fighter jet maneuvers with a jetliner but goes schizo if a bird flew in front of it during landing.
- saithound 3y ago
  Err, did you miss the part where I wrote that the post is not meant to imply that ChatGPT is not impressive?! Deep Blue beating Kasparov in chess showcased Deep Blue's capabilities; Deep Blue beating Bryan Caplan would not have showcased these capabilities, despite the capabilities being there. The analogous hypothetical situation would be a Not-so-deep Blue that fails to beat not just Kasparov, but any random chess master with a nonzero Elo score, but manages to beat Bryan Caplan. After his defeat, Caplan would write an article claiming that he's "known to be very good at chess". This would definitely say more about Caplan's chess skill than the chess engine's capabilities. And none of this would imply that chess engines are in any way impossible or unlikely, or that the capabilities are not impressive. Indeed, a chess engine that beat Caplan would have been impressive in 1975, even though we were still very far from Deep Blue or Stockfish at that point.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    You did write that, but you first wrote that GPT-4's performance says more about the task than about its capabilities. Which is the exact same pattern that has been used to "deal with" advances in AI since forever. And Caplan is a university professor, not a random person. He's not an amateur at giving tests. It's literally (part of) his job. So what happened here is not at all analogous to your chess examples.
    - palata 3y ago
      I would say that the OP is entitled to share their opinion. Which I tend to agree with. Also I would question if the job of a university professor is really to give tests, or rather to teach and conduct research. Tests are just an annoyance (that is deemed necessary). Because one passes the university tests does not mean they necessarily understand the topic very deeply, I think it's pretty obvious. That's actually an interesting point: university students can totally pass exams by "mimicking": not understanding the topic, but solving the exam problems in a way similar to the exercises they learned beforehand. I argue that the test is not perfect at discriminating those who understand from those who mimick impressively well.
      - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? I reckon not many have ever said that machines can't be intelligent, in any way. I think the most compelling question is: what makes them "human like" intelligent. Passing a multiple choice test is not an actual measure of human intelligence, it's IMO a test of "semantic searching" abilities, that machines can be trained to emulate.
- trabant00 3y ago
  > What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? There is no need to come up with a perfect criteria list for human like intelligence. And maybe it is even impossible, as we can only use the rational part of the brain to understand the whole. But when a human like intelligent machine will be here we will all know it without a doubt. It will have the impact of the wheel, the control of fire, things like that. Nobody stood around to argue about how hot things need to get to catch fire or when exactly a wheel becomes a wheel as opposed to a rolling tree trunk when their neighbors where throwing torches on their straw roofs from war chariots. Arguing about definitions, criterion, moving the goal post, etc, is just overthinking. You will drop to your knees with eyes full of tears and mouth wide open when you will experience true AI. That's how you will know.
- lr4444lr 3y ago
  I repeat Djikstra's refrain: asking whether a computer can think is like asking whether a submarine can swim.
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    How does that work? What’s the answer? Submarines certainly partake in whatever aspects of swimming are responsible for traveling in or under water.
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  I recently learned that this moving of the goal post with regards to AI is a known effect, and it's been a thing for at least a decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
  - posterboy 3y ago
    Bit of a bland coinage. It's a kind of anchoring, which is a fairly difficult tolic in psychology.
- scotty79 3y ago
  > What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? Get a nobel prize or two, then we'll talk.
- thelittleone 3y ago
  Taking these shortcomings a step further, it may not be long before we can't tell reality from simulation, since we've all so plugged in. A friend who lived in the amazon with me for sometime did a diet with datura, a potent psychoactive. He described his experience as one moment sitting in a cafe completely lucid and chatting with friends, then a moment later he is somewhere else altogether, this continued for some time and of course none of it was real despite it beinf indiscerbible to him within that experience. People often lose their sanity with this as a result of inability to find a way back to the old known "reality". With AI and neural link like interfaces... we have interesting times ahead.
belorn 3y ago
Educators are not known for having their tests being tested. If anything tests tend to have logical errors, misspellings, and "guess what the teacher thought here" kind of questions. But like anything else this current state is not set in stone. Educators just have not had any feedback and incentives. For subjects and situations where the quality of learning is actually measured, it is the teaching that matters and not the tests. You can have good education and terrible tests and students will come out of that with good education. When the quality is not measured the tests are equally meaningless. (Quality in this context means what the student can do after graduating without failing or creating accidents). I expect that in the future there won't be a reason for teachers to not give out the answers at the same time when giving out homework. That in turn will force a small change in the process of lessons and studying. Those educators who are already doing this won't need to change much in response to ChatGPT.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > Quality in this context means what the student can do after graduating without failing or creating accidents That's a problematic quality criterion, since many academic disciplines (including most of the humanities) aren't skill training programs so there is essentially nothing a graduate "can do" that sets them apart from the rest of the population.
  - belorn 3y ago
    What a student should be able to do after finish an academic course is to participate and continue with other academic courses that depend on that course. If there is nothing that requires that course, and nothing that uses anything learned from that course, than the grades of that course has no possible meaning. It noises in the forest that no one hears. What it also mean is that the measuring of quality of the teaching occur much later in the process. For example, lets say a student study basic math and then apply for an accounting class. We will only know the quality of the basic math education once the student has shown not to fail the accounting class because of poor understanding of basic math. The educator at the accounting class might over time find out that a particular schools or educators allow students to pass without actually being able to do basic math. At that point we know that the quality is low. We can see similar failure with humanities. A person studying language in order to work as a translator will fail with their job if they don't understand the language which they are translating. It is poor quality when an educator passes students as translators when they can't translate. It can also be very unsafe (translators in hospitals or legal), so high quality in humanities can be just as important as in other disciplines. We can imagine more difficult topics like philosophy, but from my own experience, those topics are more of experience based education rather than test-based learning. ChatGPT can't do in person group discussions.
stared 3y ago
> The fact that GPT-4 can pass his tests says much more about the tests than about the capabilities of GPT-4. I would be careful with writing so unfavorable opinion. Sure, GPT-4 has its strong and weak sides - so tests can be made GPT-4 proof... at least for now. Yet, GPT-4 gets a B on Scott Aaronson's quantum computing exam (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209).
scotty79 3y ago
That was my take from the beginning. If AI can pass your exam it means you have a crap exam and you need to make a better one because it doesn't test knowledge application, only recall.
bnfr 3y ago
I sense a new replication crisis. The pool of academics that get excited about AI is very limited. Aaronson worked for OpenAI at least for a while. He cites Caplan as "his friend": https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209 "As I’ve mentioned before, economist, blogger, and friend Bryan Caplan was unimpressed when ChatGPT got merely a D on his Labor Economics midterm. So on Bryan’s blog, appropriately named “Bet On It,” he made a public bet that no AI would score on A on his exam before January 30, 2029. GPT-4 then scored an A a mere three months later (!!!)" Miraculous indeed. I'll start listening if these experiments are validated by critics like Chomsky.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

Was the model allowed to use chain of thought and so on when it was evaluated?

p-e-w 3y ago

> The fact that GPT-4 can pass his tests says much more about the tests than about the capabilities of GPT-4. "Deep Blue beating Kasparov shows that ultimately, chess is just brute force calculation..." "Stable Diffusion 'art' being indistinguishable from human art to most people shows how little most people know about art..." "ChatGPT fooling people into thinking they're talking to another human shows that those people weren't paying attention, so the Turing test is actually useless for determining..." "I mean, I know that everyone used to say that doing X means being intelligent, but now that software has done X, it becomes clear that..." What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? What does it have to do for people to not retroactively downplay it by invoking mechanistic pseudo-explanations?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
carschno 3y ago
> What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? This is actually the core of the debate. The answer is that there is no real criterion because we do not understand intelligence. Or, put differently, the one-dimensional understanding of intelligence we typically entertain is a simplification. This is very inconvenient so we just pretend intelligence was a well-defined concept. That in turn leads to all kinds of confusion and pointless arguments as you have pointed out.
- palata 3y ago
  You mean IQ tests are not meaningful? Many will be disappointed :).
  - melagonster 3y ago
    this is a famous common misunderstanding, people is trying to stop it spread, but the work is difficult.
  - lamp987 3y ago
    They strongly predict various other things, therefore they are meaningful. Them being imperfect does not imply them being meaningless. That would be a low-IQ leap in logic, so to speak.
- belorn 3y ago
  While there is not definitive criterion for intelligent there is a lot of intuition. For example, I can find a book to be very intelligently written, but at the same time the book itself is not intelligent. No matter how clever answers it has to complicated questions, the book is still just an inanimate object created by a human. The definition of intelligence has to be stretched quite far in order to bypass our intuition on this. We see similar situations when people anthropomorphize animals, or ask questions like do plants have feelings. Biology research can look at neurons and DNA sequences and find all kind of similarities to humans, but it still requires a bit of a jump when we start applying human philosophy concepts to non-humans. I find it easier to look at it as metaphors. ChatGPT has intelligence similar to how the planet has an intelligence , or how the internet is like a brain with every single connected device their neurons.
- pulvinar 3y ago
  Is the average human intelligent? If I had to choose between an average human or GPT4 to help me with my work, I would choose GPT4. Seems many people think of intelligence like they think of magic. Once they learn how the trick is done, it’s no longer magic.
  - deleted 3y ago
hutzlibu 3y ago
"What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent?" For me, AGI. Intelligence is a very complex problem, we tended to meassure it by extreme outliers, evolution did not optimize fore. Like abstract math. Machines clearly are better at everything with calculations. A criterium we reserved for "intelligence". But "simple" things like understanding what a rock is, are still too hard for AI. They can reproduce and recombine some text snippets about rocks, but they do not understand, what a rock is. Or anything as far as I am aware. So they are clearly useful and do things, we described as intelligenz when humans are doing it. But human intelligence is still superior as it is a general intelligence.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > They can reproduce and recombine some text snippets about rocks, but they do not understand, what a rock is. What is the difference between "recombin[ing] some text snippets about rocks", and understanding what a rock is? I'm not asking philosophically. I'm asking how you can tell the two apart. (BTW, transformer LLMs do not operate by recombining text snippets.)
  - palata 3y ago
    > I am not asking philosophically. That is a philosophical question, though... To me, it sounds like this: "How can I prove that I 'exist'? I'm not asking philosophically, I'm just asking how to do it".
- kingkongjaffa 3y ago
  Your rock thing gets to the heart of the issue, LLM’s are a statistical mimic of what an actual intelligence might say.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    An actual intelligence is just a matter of the architecture and compute power though, right?
- moffkalast 3y ago
worrycue 3y ago
> What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? What does it have to do for people to not retroactively downplay it by invoking mechanistic pseudo-explanations? When it’s capabilities are no longer a proper subset of an average competent human’s?
- carlmr 3y ago
  >When it’s capabilities are no longer a proper subset of an average competent human’s? Interesting, I'd say that it's definitely already the case with the current iterations. The average human can't write as well as ChatGPT, or speak as many languages, or translate between them. The average human can't code , even if often subtly wrong, in most programming languages. It's definitely not a proper subset of average human intelligence anymore.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Good point. My criteria is bad. Technically speaking, Microsoft Excel's capabilities aren't a proper subset of an average competent human's either. Perhaps, When an average competent human's capabilities within their field are a subset of the AI's (for all fields of interest). is a better criteria. Basically if an AI is going to be a doctor, I want it to at least match the average doctor in capability. What I'm concern about are blind spots that the AI might have that the average human (within their field) doesn't. A jetliner pilot AI is worthless even if it can do fighter jet maneuvers with a jetliner but goes schizo if a bird flew in front of it during landing.
saithound 3y ago
Err, did you miss the part where I wrote that the post is not meant to imply that ChatGPT is not impressive?! Deep Blue beating Kasparov in chess showcased Deep Blue's capabilities; Deep Blue beating Bryan Caplan would not have showcased these capabilities, despite the capabilities being there. The analogous hypothetical situation would be a Not-so-deep Blue that fails to beat not just Kasparov, but any random chess master with a nonzero Elo score, but manages to beat Bryan Caplan. After his defeat, Caplan would write an article claiming that he's "known to be very good at chess". This would definitely say more about Caplan's chess skill than the chess engine's capabilities. And none of this would imply that chess engines are in any way impossible or unlikely, or that the capabilities are not impressive. Indeed, a chess engine that beat Caplan would have been impressive in 1975, even though we were still very far from Deep Blue or Stockfish at that point.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  You did write that, but you first wrote that GPT-4's performance says more about the task than about its capabilities. Which is the exact same pattern that has been used to "deal with" advances in AI since forever. And Caplan is a university professor, not a random person. He's not an amateur at giving tests. It's literally (part of) his job. So what happened here is not at all analogous to your chess examples.
  - palata 3y ago
    I would say that the OP is entitled to share their opinion. Which I tend to agree with. Also I would question if the job of a university professor is really to give tests, or rather to teach and conduct research. Tests are just an annoyance (that is deemed necessary). Because one passes the university tests does not mean they necessarily understand the topic very deeply, I think it's pretty obvious. That's actually an interesting point: university students can totally pass exams by "mimicking": not understanding the topic, but solving the exam problems in a way similar to the exercises they learned beforehand. I argue that the test is not perfect at discriminating those who understand from those who mimick impressively well.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? I reckon not many have ever said that machines can't be intelligent, in any way. I think the most compelling question is: what makes them "human like" intelligent. Passing a multiple choice test is not an actual measure of human intelligence, it's IMO a test of "semantic searching" abilities, that machines can be trained to emulate.
trabant00 3y ago
> What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? There is no need to come up with a perfect criteria list for human like intelligence. And maybe it is even impossible, as we can only use the rational part of the brain to understand the whole. But when a human like intelligent machine will be here we will all know it without a doubt. It will have the impact of the wheel, the control of fire, things like that. Nobody stood around to argue about how hot things need to get to catch fire or when exactly a wheel becomes a wheel as opposed to a rolling tree trunk when their neighbors where throwing torches on their straw roofs from war chariots. Arguing about definitions, criterion, moving the goal post, etc, is just overthinking. You will drop to your knees with eyes full of tears and mouth wide open when you will experience true AI. That's how you will know.
lr4444lr 3y ago
I repeat Djikstra's refrain: asking whether a computer can think is like asking whether a submarine can swim.
- SanderNL 3y ago
  How does that work? What’s the answer? Submarines certainly partake in whatever aspects of swimming are responsible for traveling in or under water.
mr_mitm 3y ago
I recently learned that this moving of the goal post with regards to AI is a known effect, and it's been a thing for at least a decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
- posterboy 3y ago
  Bit of a bland coinage. It's a kind of anchoring, which is a fairly difficult tolic in psychology.
scotty79 3y ago
> What is the real criterion for a machine to be considered intelligent? Get a nobel prize or two, then we'll talk.
thelittleone 3y ago
Taking these shortcomings a step further, it may not be long before we can't tell reality from simulation, since we've all so plugged in. A friend who lived in the amazon with me for sometime did a diet with datura, a potent psychoactive. He described his experience as one moment sitting in a cafe completely lucid and chatting with friends, then a moment later he is somewhere else altogether, this continued for some time and of course none of it was real despite it beinf indiscerbible to him within that experience. People often lose their sanity with this as a result of inability to find a way back to the old known "reality". With AI and neural link like interfaces... we have interesting times ahead.

belorn 3y ago

Educators are not known for having their tests being tested. If anything tests tend to have logical errors, misspellings, and "guess what the teacher thought here" kind of questions. But like anything else this current state is not set in stone. Educators just have not had any feedback and incentives. For subjects and situations where the quality of learning is actually measured, it is the teaching that matters and not the tests. You can have good education and terrible tests and students will come out of that with good education. When the quality is not measured the tests are equally meaningless. (Quality in this context means what the student can do after graduating without failing or creating accidents). I expect that in the future there won't be a reason for teachers to not give out the answers at the same time when giving out homework. That in turn will force a small change in the process of lessons and studying. Those educators who are already doing this won't need to change much in response to ChatGPT.

p-e-w 3y ago
> Quality in this context means what the student can do after graduating without failing or creating accidents That's a problematic quality criterion, since many academic disciplines (including most of the humanities) aren't skill training programs so there is essentially nothing a graduate "can do" that sets them apart from the rest of the population.
- belorn 3y ago
  What a student should be able to do after finish an academic course is to participate and continue with other academic courses that depend on that course. If there is nothing that requires that course, and nothing that uses anything learned from that course, than the grades of that course has no possible meaning. It noises in the forest that no one hears. What it also mean is that the measuring of quality of the teaching occur much later in the process. For example, lets say a student study basic math and then apply for an accounting class. We will only know the quality of the basic math education once the student has shown not to fail the accounting class because of poor understanding of basic math. The educator at the accounting class might over time find out that a particular schools or educators allow students to pass without actually being able to do basic math. At that point we know that the quality is low. We can see similar failure with humanities. A person studying language in order to work as a translator will fail with their job if they don't understand the language which they are translating. It is poor quality when an educator passes students as translators when they can't translate. It can also be very unsafe (translators in hospitals or legal), so high quality in humanities can be just as important as in other disciplines. We can imagine more difficult topics like philosophy, but from my own experience, those topics are more of experience based education rather than test-based learning. ChatGPT can't do in person group discussions.

stared 3y ago

> The fact that GPT-4 can pass his tests says much more about the tests than about the capabilities of GPT-4. I would be careful with writing so unfavorable opinion. Sure, GPT-4 has its strong and weak sides - so tests can be made GPT-4 proof... at least for now. Yet, GPT-4 gets a B on Scott Aaronson's quantum computing exam (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209).

scotty79 3y ago

That was my take from the beginning. If AI can pass your exam it means you have a crap exam and you need to make a better one because it doesn't test knowledge application, only recall.

bnfr 3y ago

I sense a new replication crisis. The pool of academics that get excited about AI is very limited. Aaronson worked for OpenAI at least for a while. He cites Caplan as "his friend": https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209 "As I’ve mentioned before, economist, blogger, and friend Bryan Caplan was unimpressed when ChatGPT got merely a D on his Labor Economics midterm. So on Bryan’s blog, appropriately named “Bet On It,” he made a public bet that no AI would score on A on his exam before January 30, 2029. GPT-4 then scored an A a mere three months later (!!!)" Miraculous indeed. I'll start listening if these experiments are validated by critics like Chomsky.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]