2 ms·
I think both are important things to measure. You are describing a situation where there is a human in the loop. This test measures how reliable GPT-4 is when t
by JimDabell 3y ago
I think both are important things to measure. You are describing a situation where there is a human in the loop. This test measures how reliable GPT-4 is when there isn’t a human in the loop. Right now, LLMs have vast scope as long as there’s a human involved, but if you can’t put a human in the loop this limits their use dramatically. The better LLMs get at getting things right without human oversight, the more things they can be used for.
- falcor84 3y agoAgreed in general, but I'm actually thinking more about having a code interpreter in the loop. AutoGPT might be a step in the right direction. It also might be a step towards the end of human society as we know it. Probably both.
- ben_w 3y agoIf any AI, be it an LLM or otherwise, could reliably operate at professional level without any human intervention, how many people would be permanently unemployable?
- JimDabell 3y agoThe entire point of technology – practically its definition – is to reduce work. For centuries, people have been dreaming of a day when people don’t have to work and can get robots to do it all. The problem is not AI taking away work – that’s a great thing – the problem is that our current economic system is not designed for this. Fixing our economic system is easier and gives much better results for people than trying to stop technological progress.
- ben_w 3y agoI'm not trying to suggest progress is bad. My point is more: gosh isn't it odd that people are complaining it can't do all the things, given how radically different everything will be when that does finally come to pass?