2 ms·

> So I don’t think AI technologies we have now, or plausibly have in the next few decades minimum, look like they will have materially novel effects. Anything

> So I don’t think AI technologies we have now, or plausibly have in the next few decades minimum, look like they will have materially novel effects. Anything you can do with chatGPT-4 today, you can also do with Google Search and a little more, or maybe less, work.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
A search also lets you do it with agency, transparency, and skepticism. You can evaluate the trustworthiness of a source given its actual context rather than blindly accept the first opaque answer you're given. Our practice of judgment and strategy in learning and finding answers is critical. We're not encyclopedias.
- pixl97 3y ago
  I don't guess you're keeping up with things like tree of thought chaining in things like GPT-4 and 'show your work' RLHF that are occurring now. Straight LLM answers are like a single thought in our head without any follow up and reflection on if it's correct. As you say, when performing mental work we rarely accept the first thought on something without additional thought on why it's right or wrong.
  - visarga 3y ago
    These techniques do improve the model, but if the target is "replacing humans" which means 100% autonomy, that last 1% is exponentially harder.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      So you're saying it only replaces 99% of their value and not 100%? Of course this won't be the way it works. In some places it will replace vast swathes of human workers. In other places it won't replace so many. The questions are how quickly and will these people be able to find the ways to provide for their needs without destabilizing society.
antonvs 3y ago
Google search is much more than “a little more” work if you’re trying to get up to speed on something you’re not familiar with. The difference is GPT’s ability to respond meaningfully to specific questions, and provide fleshed-out solutions tailored to specified requirements. Traditional search can’t provide that, unless what you’re trying to do is standard enough that someone else has already written up the exact solution you need.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

A search also lets you do it with agency, transparency, and skepticism. You can evaluate the trustworthiness of a source given its actual context rather than blindly accept the first opaque answer you're given. Our practice of judgment and strategy in learning and finding answers is critical. We're not encyclopedias.

pixl97 3y ago
I don't guess you're keeping up with things like tree of thought chaining in things like GPT-4 and 'show your work' RLHF that are occurring now. Straight LLM answers are like a single thought in our head without any follow up and reflection on if it's correct. As you say, when performing mental work we rarely accept the first thought on something without additional thought on why it's right or wrong.
- visarga 3y ago
  These techniques do improve the model, but if the target is "replacing humans" which means 100% autonomy, that last 1% is exponentially harder.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    So you're saying it only replaces 99% of their value and not 100%? Of course this won't be the way it works. In some places it will replace vast swathes of human workers. In other places it won't replace so many. The questions are how quickly and will these people be able to find the ways to provide for their needs without destabilizing society.

antonvs 3y ago

Google search is much more than “a little more” work if you’re trying to get up to speed on something you’re not familiar with. The difference is GPT’s ability to respond meaningfully to specific questions, and provide fleshed-out solutions tailored to specified requirements. Traditional search can’t provide that, unless what you’re trying to do is standard enough that someone else has already written up the exact solution you need.