5 ms·

It is crazy to me that we have actually reached a point where you just tell a computer to do something, and it can

by rabbits_2002 3y ago

jbotdev 3y ago
Technically that’s always been the case. It’s just that now you can tell the computer what to do in a “natural language” like English instead of a “programming language”.
- z3t4 3y ago
  We have reached a point where the computer no longer does exactly that we tell it to do :P I always though of computers being stupid, but very fast. With AI they are slow, and make human errors :P
  - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
    With the right GPU they can make mistakes almost at the speed of thought.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    I've been writing software for 35+ years, and the computer has frequently done something other than what I thought I told it to. Turns out that I'm not as good at telling computers what to do as I'd like to think.
- spiderice 3y ago
  And now we intentionally tell the computer to ignore what it is told if it’s isn’t deemed proper by the mega corps.
taneq 3y ago
And if it won’t, you might be able to weasel your way into it with a sob story about your grandma.
dwroberts 3y ago
I think this is the point where the field has just entered pseudoscientific nonsense. If this stuff were properly understood, these rules could be part of the model itself. The fact that ‘prompts’ are being used to manipulate its behaviour is, to me, a huge red flag
- andrewpolidori 3y ago
  Interesting! What do you think it's a red flag for? If it's easier to use the prompt why not do that at the level of abstraction that makes sense?
  - layer8 3y ago
    It means we don’t understand the mapping between the model and the prompt-level semantics. It also means we can’t cleanly separate (1) controlling the conversational behavior of the model from (2) having a conversation with the model. It means we have a black box that we can experiment on, but we can’t plan or predict how to control and customize it, nor can we reliably predict and control its behavior, because we can’t accurately reason about it.
    - kenjackson 3y ago
      None of your conclusions are true. We can plan and predict just fine with it. It’s not fully deterministic, but still more predictable than people. And there are a lot of things we don’t understand but are fairly predictable, like the use of pain medications. They aren’t 100% predictable, but good enough to be able to administer as part of a well thought out regimen. And given the fact that we can test it in a somewhat closed system gives us much more ability to predict its behavior than many things “in real life”.
- Tactician_mark 3y ago
  Sure, it's a sign that we don't "understand this stuff properly", but you can say the same about human brains. Is it a red flag that we use language to communicate with each other instead of manipulating nerve impulses directly?
ChatGTP 3y ago
This isn't necessarily a uniform improvement, it is however, a great novelty at present. Time will tell. I mean, yes it's cool I can write an essay to get Dall-E to generate almost the exact image I want (and I still can't using natural language), is it truly an improvement ? Yes I can churn out content faster, but I can't make the computer draw exactly what I want with words alone. A picture is worth a thousand words, or maybe two thousand?
seydor 3y ago
It does something, not definitely the thing you asked
HaZeust 3y ago
It's even crazier to me that we've just... Accepted it, and are in the process of taking it for granted. This type of technology was a moonshot 2 years ago, and many experts didn't expect it in the lifetimes of ANYONE here - and who knew the answer was increasing transformers and iterating attention? And golly, there are a LOT of nay-sayers of the industry. I've even heard some folks on podcasts and forums saying this will be as short-lived and as meaningless as NFTs. NFTs couldn't re-write my entire Python codebase into Go, NFTs weren't ever close to passing the bar or MCAT. This stuff is crazy!
PoignardAzur 3y ago
The crazy part is that it became banal so fast that people act like it's no big deal and will absolutely insist that the computer doesn't "actually" understand anything because it hasn't reached some perfectly interpretable platonic ideal of understanding yet, and anyone amazed that you can talk with the pile of sand is just being naive.

It is crazy to me that we have actually reached a point where you just tell a computer to do something, and it can

Technically that’s always been the case. It’s just that now you can tell the computer what to do in a “natural language” like English instead of a “programming language”.

z3t4 3y ago
We have reached a point where the computer no longer does exactly that we tell it to do :P I always though of computers being stupid, but very fast. With AI they are slow, and make human errors :P
- loloquwowndueo 3y ago
  With the right GPU they can make mistakes almost at the speed of thought.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  I've been writing software for 35+ years, and the computer has frequently done something other than what I thought I told it to. Turns out that I'm not as good at telling computers what to do as I'd like to think.
spiderice 3y ago
And now we intentionally tell the computer to ignore what it is told if it’s isn’t deemed proper by the mega corps.

taneq 3y ago

And if it won’t, you might be able to weasel your way into it with a sob story about your grandma.

dwroberts 3y ago

I think this is the point where the field has just entered pseudoscientific nonsense. If this stuff were properly understood, these rules could be part of the model itself. The fact that ‘prompts’ are being used to manipulate its behaviour is, to me, a huge red flag

andrewpolidori 3y ago
Interesting! What do you think it's a red flag for? If it's easier to use the prompt why not do that at the level of abstraction that makes sense?
- layer8 3y ago
  It means we don’t understand the mapping between the model and the prompt-level semantics. It also means we can’t cleanly separate (1) controlling the conversational behavior of the model from (2) having a conversation with the model. It means we have a black box that we can experiment on, but we can’t plan or predict how to control and customize it, nor can we reliably predict and control its behavior, because we can’t accurately reason about it.
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    None of your conclusions are true. We can plan and predict just fine with it. It’s not fully deterministic, but still more predictable than people. And there are a lot of things we don’t understand but are fairly predictable, like the use of pain medications. They aren’t 100% predictable, but good enough to be able to administer as part of a well thought out regimen. And given the fact that we can test it in a somewhat closed system gives us much more ability to predict its behavior than many things “in real life”.
Tactician_mark 3y ago
Sure, it's a sign that we don't "understand this stuff properly", but you can say the same about human brains. Is it a red flag that we use language to communicate with each other instead of manipulating nerve impulses directly?

ChatGTP 3y ago

This isn't necessarily a uniform improvement, it is however, a great novelty at present. Time will tell. I mean, yes it's cool I can write an essay to get Dall-E to generate almost the exact image I want (and I still can't using natural language), is it truly an improvement ? Yes I can churn out content faster, but I can't make the computer draw exactly what I want with words alone. A picture is worth a thousand words, or maybe two thousand?

seydor 3y ago

It does something, not definitely the thing you asked

HaZeust 3y ago

It's even crazier to me that we've just... Accepted it, and are in the process of taking it for granted. This type of technology was a moonshot 2 years ago, and many experts didn't expect it in the lifetimes of ANYONE here - and who knew the answer was increasing transformers and iterating attention? And golly, there are a LOT of nay-sayers of the industry. I've even heard some folks on podcasts and forums saying this will be as short-lived and as meaningless as NFTs. NFTs couldn't re-write my entire Python codebase into Go, NFTs weren't ever close to passing the bar or MCAT. This stuff is crazy!

PoignardAzur 3y ago

The crazy part is that it became banal so fast that people act like it's no big deal and will absolutely insist that the computer doesn't "actually" understand anything because it hasn't reached some perfectly interpretable platonic ideal of understanding yet, and anyone amazed that you can talk with the pile of sand is just being naive.