2 ms·
>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 intell
by 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 agoBetween 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 agoYes, 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 agoTo the extent people can, sure. I sent many links. Do read them