4 ms·

But the results are indicative of what it is, and they fall short even if your only criteria is usefulness. It can't tell the difference between truth and falsi

But the results are indicative of what it is, and they fall short even if your only criteria is usefulness. It can't tell the difference between truth and falsity, let alone do more interesting things like reflecting on an experience, which our brains, however they might work, can. The more interesting question is why are people like you personally offended when someone is less than thrilled with a machine that has been programmed to do linear algebra over a large input? You seem to think that that mechanism in itself has a potential to do magic and that other people who reject that are a threat.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>But the results are indicative of what it is, and they fall short even if your only criteria is usefulness There isn't a testable definition of general intelligence that GPT-4 fails that a chunk of humans also wouldn't. If they fall short then so do people. Guess those people aren't generally intelligent then according to you. >It can't tell the difference between truth and falsity Yes, it very much can. GPT-4 logits calibration pre RLHF - https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback - https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14975 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14975 Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words - https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14334 https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14334 Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know - https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221 https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221 The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasets - https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06824 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06824 >The more interesting question is why are people like you personally offended I'm not offended about anything.
- alienicecream 3y ago
  > There isn't a testable definition of general intelligence that GPT-4 fails that a chunk of humans also wouldn't. Sure there is and it's a basic one: can it determine a fact?
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Between the microchip in the vaccine, humanity never having landed on the Moon, and the importance of my astrological sign (I'm a Libra), can humans?
    - alienicecream 3y ago
      Yes, because humans have a reference to the world and they can, in some cases check the claim. The examples you give are not facts we can directly check, we take it on authority that they are true or not based on individual conceptions about the validity of the authority. Even the cases you mention provide another example of what this "AI" cannot do: it cannot dispute facts, because "the world" is not in it's domain of reference. It's domain of reference is text previously produced by humans and all it can do it manipulate that to produce something hopefully useful to us. Even there it is not very good, otherwise it would be producing new mathematical theorems, since you don't need a reference to the world for that, but it doesn't "understand" logic well enough (if you can say it understands anything) and it doesn't have the concepts to do it.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    To the extent people can, sure. I sent many links. Do read them

famouswaffles 3y ago

>But the results are indicative of what it is, and they fall short even if your only criteria is usefulness There isn't a testable definition of general intelligence that GPT-4 fails that a chunk of humans also wouldn't. If they fall short then so do people. Guess those people aren't generally intelligent then according to you. >It can't tell the difference between truth and falsity Yes, it very much can. GPT-4 logits calibration pre RLHF - https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback - https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14975 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14975 Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words - https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14334 https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14334 Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know - https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221 https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221 The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasets - https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06824 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06824 >The more interesting question is why are people like you personally offended I'm not offended about anything.

alienicecream 3y ago
> There isn't a testable definition of general intelligence that GPT-4 fails that a chunk of humans also wouldn't. Sure there is and it's a basic one: can it determine a fact?
- fragmede 3y ago
  Between the microchip in the vaccine, humanity never having landed on the Moon, and the importance of my astrological sign (I'm a Libra), can humans?
  - alienicecream 3y ago
    Yes, because humans have a reference to the world and they can, in some cases check the claim. The examples you give are not facts we can directly check, we take it on authority that they are true or not based on individual conceptions about the validity of the authority. Even the cases you mention provide another example of what this "AI" cannot do: it cannot dispute facts, because "the world" is not in it's domain of reference. It's domain of reference is text previously produced by humans and all it can do it manipulate that to produce something hopefully useful to us. Even there it is not very good, otherwise it would be producing new mathematical theorems, since you don't need a reference to the world for that, but it doesn't "understand" logic well enough (if you can say it understands anything) and it doesn't have the concepts to do it.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  To the extent people can, sure. I sent many links. Do read them