3 ms·
I can be sympathetic to many folks who have publicly dismissed LLMs as vapid hype in past months -- tech has claimed many fundamental breakthroughs before, it w
by cjbprime 3y ago
I can be sympathetic to many folks who have publicly dismissed LLMs as vapid hype in past months -- tech has claimed many fundamental breakthroughs before, it was reasonable to expect this would be another illusory one too -- but come on, even science fiction authors can't tell the difference between GPT-4 and autocomplete? It just feels willfully unimaginative of them, and perhaps motivated by insecurity.
Use some of the creativity we've all seen you exhibit to ask GPT-4 questions that require complex reasoning inside a world model, rather than regurgitating its training set. It's not going to get it right all of the time, but the fact that it can get it right any of the time is astonishing, and it's going to get quickly better, perhaps even purely through compute spend increase rather than algorithmic breakthrough.
- Ekaros 3y agoMaybe it is important to ask if that creativity is truly unique? Or in those cases already encoded in the training data? Humans in general might not actually be that creative. Or variations are something that could be broken.
- cjbprime 3y agoYou should try web searching for your question before asking it. If it shows up, don't ask it. If it doesn't show up, and the complaint is that it's possible to solve the question by studying past answers to different questions and applying them to this new one, then that sounds like reasoning to me.