4 ms·

The problem really kicked off with the "Sparks" paper. Microsoft Research joined the Marketing department and suddenly Eric Horvitz is co-authoring a paper that

The problem really kicked off with the "Sparks" paper. Microsoft Research joined the Marketing department and suddenly Eric Horvitz is co-authoring a paper that "proves" AGI is here because GPT-4 can draw a unicorn. I wish that ML folks were more concerned with doing actual science (I know some are) and less about hype. Most of pushback is only a natural reaction to this, I believe.

qsort 3y ago
Disclaimer: I don't doubt that most ML folk are doing their job and are doing it well -- as a matter of fact, my company regularly does projects with our local university, so I know that, first hand. With that out of the way, I said it then and I'll say it now: a paper where Microsoft describes how well Microsoft products perform on benchmarks designed by Microsoft employees isn't science, and can't become science even if you write it in latex and put it on arxiv.
famouswaffles 3y ago
The paper is fine. It doesn't "prove" anything. But it does show along with other recent insights that people who have a testable definition of general intelligence that is inclusive of humans and say 4 isn't don't have any leg to stand on. The biggest indicator that we have something here is that no one wants to argue results anymore because then the arguments fall apart. Suddenly it's "4 isn't AGI because it isn't doing "real" reasoning" instead of "4 isn't AGI because it can't do this intelligent task all humans can"
lewhoo 3y ago
AGI is here because GPT-4 can draw a unicorn Seeing how random gpt performs this task nowadays I became much more skeptical towards this (https://gpt-unicorn.adamkdean.co.uk/ https://gpt-unicorn.adamkdean.co.uk/). Even if you argue the model is somehow crippled due to computation costs I'd still expect that gpt-4 could SOMETIMES draw something like a unicorn with vector shapes but perhaps not all the time. Certainly a one prompt one result conclusion seems to me really weird.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >Seeing how random gpt performs this task nowadays I became much more skeptical towards this In the paper, they say RLHF GPT performs worse on the task so it's not too surprising
visarga 3y ago
That paper did a number on me... I was dizzy for a day. Couldn't process the implications fast enough. It was really a dangerous paper to read, you need deep de-hyping when you finish.

qsort 3y ago

Disclaimer: I don't doubt that most ML folk are doing their job and are doing it well -- as a matter of fact, my company regularly does projects with our local university, so I know that, first hand. With that out of the way, I said it then and I'll say it now: a paper where Microsoft describes how well Microsoft products perform on benchmarks designed by Microsoft employees isn't science, and can't become science even if you write it in latex and put it on arxiv.

famouswaffles 3y ago

The paper is fine. It doesn't "prove" anything. But it does show along with other recent insights that people who have a testable definition of general intelligence that is inclusive of humans and say 4 isn't don't have any leg to stand on. The biggest indicator that we have something here is that no one wants to argue results anymore because then the arguments fall apart. Suddenly it's "4 isn't AGI because it isn't doing "real" reasoning" instead of "4 isn't AGI because it can't do this intelligent task all humans can"

lewhoo 3y ago

AGI is here because GPT-4 can draw a unicorn Seeing how random gpt performs this task nowadays I became much more skeptical towards this (https://gpt-unicorn.adamkdean.co.uk/ https://gpt-unicorn.adamkdean.co.uk/). Even if you argue the model is somehow crippled due to computation costs I'd still expect that gpt-4 could SOMETIMES draw something like a unicorn with vector shapes but perhaps not all the time. Certainly a one prompt one result conclusion seems to me really weird.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>Seeing how random gpt performs this task nowadays I became much more skeptical towards this In the paper, they say RLHF GPT performs worse on the task so it's not too surprising

visarga 3y ago

That paper did a number on me... I was dizzy for a day. Couldn't process the implications fast enough. It was really a dangerous paper to read, you need deep de-hyping when you finish.