7 ms·

The results of this LLM are consistently far better than any other that I choose. I asked ‘what is the most efficient approach to building a led grow light with

The results of this LLM are consistently far better than any other that I choose. I asked ‘what is the most efficient approach to building a led grow light with off-the-shelf parts?’ and its response was incredible. Very much in line with how I’ve done it in the past after weeks of research, trial and error, and feedback from people. The other LLMs gave mostly reasonable yet sparse and incomplete answers. It also opted to include an outline of how to include an integrated timer. That’s a great idea and very practical, but wasn’t prompted at all. Some might consider that a bad thing, though. Whatever it is, it’s substantially better than what I’ve been using. Exciting.

throwup238 3y ago
I'm asking it about how to make turbine blades for a high bypass turbofan engine and it's giving very good answers, including math and some very esoteric material science knowledge. Way past the point where the knowledge can be easily checked for hallucinations without digging into literature including journal papers and using the math to build some simulations. I don't even have to prompt it much, I just keep saying "keep going" and it gets deeper and deeper. Opus has completely run off the rails in comparison. I can't wait till this model hits general availability.
- squigz 3y ago
  You mean it's giving very good sounding answers.
  - f_devd 3y ago
    That's what I've observed, I gave it a task for a PoC on something I've been thinking about for a while and it's answer while syntactically correct is entirely useless (in the literal sense) due to it ignoring parts of the task.
- harryp_peng 3y ago
  You know at one point we wouldn't be able to benchmark them, due to the sheer complexity of the test required. I.e. if you are testing a model on maths, the problem will have to be extremely difficult to even consider a 'hustle' for the LLM; it would then take you a day to work out the solution yourself. See where it's getting at? When humans are no longer on the same spectrum as LLMs, that's probably the definition of AGI.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    You know, people often complain about goal shifting in AI. We hit some target that was supposed to be AI (or even AGI), kind of go meh - and then change to a new goal. But the problem isn't goal shifting, the problem is that the goals were set to a level that had nothing whatsoever to do where we "really" want to go, precisely in order to make them achievable. So it's no surprise that when we hit these neutered goals we aren't then where we hope to actually be! So here, with your example. Basic software programs can multiply million digit numbers near instantly with absolutely no problem. This would take a human years of dedicated effort to solve. Solving work, of any sort, that's difficult for a human has absolutely nothing to do with AGI. If we think about what we "really" mean by AGI, I think it's the exact opposite even. AGI will instead involve computers doing what's relatively easy for humans. Go back not that long ago in our past and we were glorified monkeys. Now we're glorified monkeys with nukes and who've landed on the Moon! The point of this is that if you go back in time we basically knew nothing. State of the art technology was 'whack it with stick!', communication was limited to various grunts, and our collective knowledge was very limited, and many assumptions of fact were simply completely wrong. Now imagine training an LLM on the state of human knowledge from this time, perhaps alongside a primitive sensory feed of the world. AGI would be able to take this and not only get to where we are today, but then go well beyond it. And this should all be able to happen at an exceptionally rapid rate, given historic human knowledge transfer and storage rates over time has always been some number really close to zero. AGI not only would not suffer such problems but would have perfect memory, orders of magnitude greater 'conscious' raw computational ability (as even a basic phone today has), and so on. --- Is this goal achievable? No, not anytime in the foreseeable future, if ever. But people don't want this. They want to believe AGI is not only possible, but might even happen in their lifetime. But I think if we objectively think about what we "really" want to see, it's clear that it isn't coming anytime soon. Instead we're doomed to just goal shift our way endlessly towards creating what may one day be a really good natural language search engine. And hey, that's a heck of an accomplishment that will have immense utility, but it's nowhere near the goal that we "really" want.
    - zarzavat 3y ago
      There are different shades of AGI, but we don’t know if they will happen all at once or not. For example, if an AI can replace the average white collar worker and therefore cause massive economic disruption, that would be a shade of AGI. Another shade of AGI would be an AI that can effectively do research level mathematics and theoretical physics and is therefore capable of very high-level logical reasoning. We don’t know if shades A and B will happen at the same time, or if there will be a delay between developing one and other. AGI doesn’t imply simulation of a human mind or possessing all of human capabilities. It simply refers to an entity that possesses General Intelligence on par with a human. If it can prove the Riemann hypothesis but it can’t play the cello, it’s still an AGI. One notable shade of AGI is the singularity: an AI that can create new AIs better than humans can create new AIs. When we reach shades A and B then a singularity AGI is probably quite close, if not before. Note that a singularity AGI doesn’t require simulation of the human mind either. It’s entirely possible that a cello-playing AI is chronologically after a self-improving AI.
jacobsimon 3y ago
I asked it directly and it confirmed that it is based on GPT-4: > Can you confirm or deny if you are chatgpt 4? > Yes, I am based on the GPT-4 architecture. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask! > Can you confirm or deny if you are chatgpt 5? > I am based on the GPT-4 architecture, not GPT-5. If you have any questions or need assistance with something, feel free to ask! It also seems to think its date cutoff is November 2023. I'm inclined to think this is just GPT-4 under a different name.
- humansareok1 3y ago
  Unfortunately this is not reliable, many Non-GPT models happily claim to be GPT-4 e.g.
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    I simply asked it "what are you" and it responded that it was GPT-4 based. > I'm ChatGPT, a virtual assistant powered by artificial intelligence, specifically designed by OpenAI based on the GPT-4 model. I can help answer questions, provide explanations, generate text based on prompts, and assist with a wide range of topics. Whether you need help with information, learning something new, solving problems, or just looking for a chat, I'm here to assist!
    - steve_adams_86 3y ago
      This doesn't necessarily confirm that it's 4, though. For example, when I write a new version of a package on some package management system, the code may be updated by 1 major version but it stays the exact same version until I enter the new version into the manifest. Perhaps that's the same here; the training and architecture are improved, but the version number hasn't been ticked up (and perhaps intentionally; they haven't announced this as a new version openly, and calling it GPT-2 doesn't explain anything either).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - 3y ago
hehdhdjehehegwv 3y ago
The level of competition right now is so crazy, if it ISN’T a new version of ChatGPT then OpenAI is in trouble. GPT-4 isn’t significantly better than Llama 3. Sure, it’s better, but the margins are evaporating fast. (I’d mention Gemini…but why bother? IMHO, this is now OpenAI the company vs Open models)
- harryp_peng 3y ago
  This really is the fastest growing technology of all time. Do you feel the curve? I remember Mixtral8x7b dominating for months; I expected data bricks to do the same! but it was washed out of existence in days, with 8x22b, llama3, gemini1.5... WOW.
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    I must be missing something because the output from two years ago feels exactly the same as the output now. Any comment saying the output is significantly better can be equally pared with a comment saying the output is terrible/censored/"nerfed". How do you see "fastest growing technology of all time" and I don't? I know that I keep very up to date with this stuff, so it's not that I'm unaware of things.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
      The best we had two years ago was GPT-3, which was not even instruction tuned and hallucinated wildly.
    - cma 3y ago
      Are you trying the paid gpt or just free 3.5 chatgpt?
      - krainboltgreene 3y ago
        100% of the time when I post a critique someone replies with this. I tell them I've used literally every LLM under the sun quite a bit to find any use I can think of and then it's immediately crickets.
heavyset_go 3y ago
> It also opted to include an outline of how to include an integrated timer. That’s a great idea and very practical, but wasn’t prompted at all. Some might consider that a bad thing, though. When I've seen GPT-* do this, it's because the top articles about that subject online include that extraneous information and it's regurgitating them without being asked.

throwup238 3y ago

I'm asking it about how to make turbine blades for a high bypass turbofan engine and it's giving very good answers, including math and some very esoteric material science knowledge. Way past the point where the knowledge can be easily checked for hallucinations without digging into literature including journal papers and using the math to build some simulations. I don't even have to prompt it much, I just keep saying "keep going" and it gets deeper and deeper. Opus has completely run off the rails in comparison. I can't wait till this model hits general availability.

squigz 3y ago
You mean it's giving very good sounding answers.
- f_devd 3y ago
  That's what I've observed, I gave it a task for a PoC on something I've been thinking about for a while and it's answer while syntactically correct is entirely useless (in the literal sense) due to it ignoring parts of the task.
harryp_peng 3y ago
You know at one point we wouldn't be able to benchmark them, due to the sheer complexity of the test required. I.e. if you are testing a model on maths, the problem will have to be extremely difficult to even consider a 'hustle' for the LLM; it would then take you a day to work out the solution yourself. See where it's getting at? When humans are no longer on the same spectrum as LLMs, that's probably the definition of AGI.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  You know, people often complain about goal shifting in AI. We hit some target that was supposed to be AI (or even AGI), kind of go meh - and then change to a new goal. But the problem isn't goal shifting, the problem is that the goals were set to a level that had nothing whatsoever to do where we "really" want to go, precisely in order to make them achievable. So it's no surprise that when we hit these neutered goals we aren't then where we hope to actually be! So here, with your example. Basic software programs can multiply million digit numbers near instantly with absolutely no problem. This would take a human years of dedicated effort to solve. Solving work, of any sort, that's difficult for a human has absolutely nothing to do with AGI. If we think about what we "really" mean by AGI, I think it's the exact opposite even. AGI will instead involve computers doing what's relatively easy for humans. Go back not that long ago in our past and we were glorified monkeys. Now we're glorified monkeys with nukes and who've landed on the Moon! The point of this is that if you go back in time we basically knew nothing. State of the art technology was 'whack it with stick!', communication was limited to various grunts, and our collective knowledge was very limited, and many assumptions of fact were simply completely wrong. Now imagine training an LLM on the state of human knowledge from this time, perhaps alongside a primitive sensory feed of the world. AGI would be able to take this and not only get to where we are today, but then go well beyond it. And this should all be able to happen at an exceptionally rapid rate, given historic human knowledge transfer and storage rates over time has always been some number really close to zero. AGI not only would not suffer such problems but would have perfect memory, orders of magnitude greater 'conscious' raw computational ability (as even a basic phone today has), and so on. --- Is this goal achievable? No, not anytime in the foreseeable future, if ever. But people don't want this. They want to believe AGI is not only possible, but might even happen in their lifetime. But I think if we objectively think about what we "really" want to see, it's clear that it isn't coming anytime soon. Instead we're doomed to just goal shift our way endlessly towards creating what may one day be a really good natural language search engine. And hey, that's a heck of an accomplishment that will have immense utility, but it's nowhere near the goal that we "really" want.
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    There are different shades of AGI, but we don’t know if they will happen all at once or not. For example, if an AI can replace the average white collar worker and therefore cause massive economic disruption, that would be a shade of AGI. Another shade of AGI would be an AI that can effectively do research level mathematics and theoretical physics and is therefore capable of very high-level logical reasoning. We don’t know if shades A and B will happen at the same time, or if there will be a delay between developing one and other. AGI doesn’t imply simulation of a human mind or possessing all of human capabilities. It simply refers to an entity that possesses General Intelligence on par with a human. If it can prove the Riemann hypothesis but it can’t play the cello, it’s still an AGI. One notable shade of AGI is the singularity: an AI that can create new AIs better than humans can create new AIs. When we reach shades A and B then a singularity AGI is probably quite close, if not before. Note that a singularity AGI doesn’t require simulation of the human mind either. It’s entirely possible that a cello-playing AI is chronologically after a self-improving AI.

jacobsimon 3y ago

I asked it directly and it confirmed that it is based on GPT-4: > Can you confirm or deny if you are chatgpt 4? > Yes, I am based on the GPT-4 architecture. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask! > Can you confirm or deny if you are chatgpt 5? > I am based on the GPT-4 architecture, not GPT-5. If you have any questions or need assistance with something, feel free to ask! It also seems to think its date cutoff is November 2023. I'm inclined to think this is just GPT-4 under a different name.

humansareok1 3y ago
Unfortunately this is not reliable, many Non-GPT models happily claim to be GPT-4 e.g.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  I simply asked it "what are you" and it responded that it was GPT-4 based. > I'm ChatGPT, a virtual assistant powered by artificial intelligence, specifically designed by OpenAI based on the GPT-4 model. I can help answer questions, provide explanations, generate text based on prompts, and assist with a wide range of topics. Whether you need help with information, learning something new, solving problems, or just looking for a chat, I'm here to assist!
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    This doesn't necessarily confirm that it's 4, though. For example, when I write a new version of a package on some package management system, the code may be updated by 1 major version but it stays the exact same version until I enter the new version into the manifest. Perhaps that's the same here; the training and architecture are improved, but the version number hasn't been ticked up (and perhaps intentionally; they haven't announced this as a new version openly, and calling it GPT-2 doesn't explain anything either).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 3y ago

hehdhdjehehegwv 3y ago

The level of competition right now is so crazy, if it ISN’T a new version of ChatGPT then OpenAI is in trouble. GPT-4 isn’t significantly better than Llama 3. Sure, it’s better, but the margins are evaporating fast. (I’d mention Gemini…but why bother? IMHO, this is now OpenAI the company vs Open models)

harryp_peng 3y ago
This really is the fastest growing technology of all time. Do you feel the curve? I remember Mixtral8x7b dominating for months; I expected data bricks to do the same! but it was washed out of existence in days, with 8x22b, llama3, gemini1.5... WOW.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  I must be missing something because the output from two years ago feels exactly the same as the output now. Any comment saying the output is significantly better can be equally pared with a comment saying the output is terrible/censored/"nerfed". How do you see "fastest growing technology of all time" and I don't? I know that I keep very up to date with this stuff, so it's not that I'm unaware of things.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
    The best we had two years ago was GPT-3, which was not even instruction tuned and hallucinated wildly.
  - cma 3y ago
    Are you trying the paid gpt or just free 3.5 chatgpt?
    - krainboltgreene 3y ago
      100% of the time when I post a critique someone replies with this. I tell them I've used literally every LLM under the sun quite a bit to find any use I can think of and then it's immediately crickets.

heavyset_go 3y ago

> It also opted to include an outline of how to include an integrated timer. That’s a great idea and very practical, but wasn’t prompted at all. Some might consider that a bad thing, though. When I've seen GPT-* do this, it's because the top articles about that subject online include that extraneous information and it's regurgitating them without being asked.