5 ms·

What part of this makes you think GPT-4 suddenly developed a world model? I find this comment ridiculous and bizarre. Do you seriously think snappy response tim

What part of this makes you think GPT-4 suddenly developed a world model? I find this comment ridiculous and bizarre. Do you seriously think snappy response time + fake emotions is an indicator of intelligence? It seems like you are just getting excited and throwing out a bunch of words without even pretending to explain yourself: > using language in a way that requires both a shared world model Where? What example of GPT-4o requires a shared world model? The customer support example? The reason GPT-4 does not have any meaningful world model (in the sense that rats have meaningful world models) is that it freely believes contradictory facts without being confused, freely confabulates without having brain damage, and it has no real understanding of quantity or causality. Nothing in GPT-4o fixes that, and gpt2-chatbot certainly had the same problems with hallucinations and failing the same pigeon-level math problems that all other GPTs fail.

famouswaffles 2y ago
One of the most interesting things about the advent of LLMs is people bringing out all sorts of "reasons" GPT doesn't have true 'insert property' but all those reasons freely occur in humans as well >that it freely believes contradictory facts without being confused, Humans do this. You do this. I guess you don't have a meaningful world model. >freely confabulates without having brain damage Humans do this >and it has no real understanding of quantity or causality. Well this one is just wrong.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  So many even here on HN have a near-religious belief that intelligence is unique to humans and animals, and somehow a fundamental phenomenon that cannot ever be created using other materials.
  - dvaun 2y ago
    It's a defensive response to an emerging threat to stability and current social tiers.
    - alienicecream 2y ago
      [dead]
  - idontpost 2y ago
    [dead]
  - joquarky 2y ago
    It reminds me of the geocentric mindset.
- spuz 2y ago
  I agree. The interesting lesson I take from the seemingly strong capabilities of LLMs is not how smart they are but how dumb we are. I don't think LLMs are anywhere near as smart as humans yet, but it feels each new advance is bringing the finish line closer rather than the other way round.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    Moravec's paradox states that, for AI, the hard stuff is easiest and the easy stuff is hardest. But there's no easy or hard; there's only what the network was trained to do. The stuff that comes easy to us, like navigating 3D space, was trained by billions of years of evolution. The hard stuff, like language and calculus, is new stuff we've only recently become capable of, seemingly by evolutionary accident, and aren't very naturally good at. We need rigorous academic training at it that's rarely very successful (there's only so many people with the random brain creases to be a von Neumann or Einstein), so we're impressed by it.
- pests 2y ago
  >>and it has no real understanding of quantity or causality. >Well this one is just wrong. Is it? -- Me: how many characters are in: https://google.com https://google.com ChatGPT: The URL "https://google.com https://google.com" has 12 characters, including the letters, dots, and slashes. -- What is it counting there? 12 is wrong no matter how you dice that up. Part of the reason is it has no concept of the actual string. That URL breaks into four different tokens in 3.5 and 4: "http", "://", "google" and ".com". Its not able to figure out the total length, or even the length of its parts and add them together. I ask it to double check, it tells me 13 and then 14. I tell it the answer and suddenly its able... --- Me: I think its 18 ChatGPT: Let's recount together: "https:// https://" has 8 characters. "google" has 6 characters. ".com" has 4 characters. Adding these up gives a total of 8 + 6 + 4 = 18 characters. You're correct! My apologies for the oversight earlier. --- Count me out.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    It seems you're already aware LLMs receive tokens not words. Does a blind man not understand quantity because you asked him how many apples are in front of him and he failed ?
    - pests 2y ago
      I do, but I think it shows it's limitations. I don't think that test determines his understanding of quantity at all, he has other senses like touch to determine the correct answer. He doesn't make up a number and then give justification. GPT was presented with everything it needed to answer the question.
      - famouswaffles 2y ago
        Nobody said GPT was perfect. Everything has limitations. >he has other senses like touch to determine the correct answer And? In my hypothetical, you're not allowing him to use touch. >I don't think that test determines his understanding of quantity at all Obviously >GPT was presented with everything it needed to answer the question. No, it was not.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  If someone found a way to put an actual human brain into SW, but no one knew it was a real human brain -- I'm certain most of HN would claim it wasn't AGI. "Kind of sucks at math", "Knows weird facts about Tik Tok celebrities, but nothing about world events", "Makes lots of grammar mistakes", "scores poorly on most standardized tests, except for one area that he seems to well", and "not very creative".
  - goatlover 2y ago
    What is a human brain without the rest of it's body? Humans aren't brains. Our nervous systems aren't just the brain either.
    - kenjackson 2y ago
      It's meant to explore a point. Unless your point is that AGI can only exist with a human body too.
      - goatlover 2y ago
        It's an open question as to whether AGI needs a (robot) body. It's also a big question whether the human brain can function in a meaningful capacity kept alive without a body.
- chasd00 2y ago
  i don't think making the same mistakes as a human counts as a feature. I see that a lot when people point out a flaw with an llm, the response is always "well a human would make the same mistake!". That's not much of an excuse, computers exist because they do the things humans can't do very well like following long repetitive lists of instructions. Further, upthread, there's discussion about adding emotions to an llm. An emotional computer that makes mistakes sometimes is pretty worthless as a "computer".
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    It's not about counting as a feature. It's the blatant logical fallacy. If a trait isn't a reason humans don't have a certain property then it's not a reason for machines either. Can't eat your cake and have it. >That's not much of an excuse, computers exist because they do the things humans can't do very well like following long repetitive lists of instructions. Computers exist because they are useful, nothing more and nothing less. If they were useful in a completely different way, they would still exist and be used.
- goatlover 2y ago
  It's objectively true that LLMs do not have bodies. To the extent general intelligence relies on being emobodied (allowing you to manipulate the world and learn from that), it's a legitimate thing to point out.

famouswaffles 2y ago

One of the most interesting things about the advent of LLMs is people bringing out all sorts of "reasons" GPT doesn't have true 'insert property' but all those reasons freely occur in humans as well >that it freely believes contradictory facts without being confused, Humans do this. You do this. I guess you don't have a meaningful world model. >freely confabulates without having brain damage Humans do this >and it has no real understanding of quantity or causality. Well this one is just wrong.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
So many even here on HN have a near-religious belief that intelligence is unique to humans and animals, and somehow a fundamental phenomenon that cannot ever be created using other materials.
- dvaun 2y ago
  It's a defensive response to an emerging threat to stability and current social tiers.
  - alienicecream 2y ago
    [dead]
- idontpost 2y ago
  [dead]
- joquarky 2y ago
  It reminds me of the geocentric mindset.
spuz 2y ago
I agree. The interesting lesson I take from the seemingly strong capabilities of LLMs is not how smart they are but how dumb we are. I don't think LLMs are anywhere near as smart as humans yet, but it feels each new advance is bringing the finish line closer rather than the other way round.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  Moravec's paradox states that, for AI, the hard stuff is easiest and the easy stuff is hardest. But there's no easy or hard; there's only what the network was trained to do. The stuff that comes easy to us, like navigating 3D space, was trained by billions of years of evolution. The hard stuff, like language and calculus, is new stuff we've only recently become capable of, seemingly by evolutionary accident, and aren't very naturally good at. We need rigorous academic training at it that's rarely very successful (there's only so many people with the random brain creases to be a von Neumann or Einstein), so we're impressed by it.
pests 2y ago
>>and it has no real understanding of quantity or causality. >Well this one is just wrong. Is it? -- Me: how many characters are in: https://google.com https://google.com ChatGPT: The URL "https://google.com https://google.com" has 12 characters, including the letters, dots, and slashes. -- What is it counting there? 12 is wrong no matter how you dice that up. Part of the reason is it has no concept of the actual string. That URL breaks into four different tokens in 3.5 and 4: "http", "://", "google" and ".com". Its not able to figure out the total length, or even the length of its parts and add them together. I ask it to double check, it tells me 13 and then 14. I tell it the answer and suddenly its able... --- Me: I think its 18 ChatGPT: Let's recount together: "https:// https://" has 8 characters. "google" has 6 characters. ".com" has 4 characters. Adding these up gives a total of 8 + 6 + 4 = 18 characters. You're correct! My apologies for the oversight earlier. --- Count me out.
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  It seems you're already aware LLMs receive tokens not words. Does a blind man not understand quantity because you asked him how many apples are in front of him and he failed ?
  - pests 2y ago
    I do, but I think it shows it's limitations. I don't think that test determines his understanding of quantity at all, he has other senses like touch to determine the correct answer. He doesn't make up a number and then give justification. GPT was presented with everything it needed to answer the question.
    - famouswaffles 2y ago
      Nobody said GPT was perfect. Everything has limitations. >he has other senses like touch to determine the correct answer And? In my hypothetical, you're not allowing him to use touch. >I don't think that test determines his understanding of quantity at all Obviously >GPT was presented with everything it needed to answer the question. No, it was not.
kenjackson 2y ago
If someone found a way to put an actual human brain into SW, but no one knew it was a real human brain -- I'm certain most of HN would claim it wasn't AGI. "Kind of sucks at math", "Knows weird facts about Tik Tok celebrities, but nothing about world events", "Makes lots of grammar mistakes", "scores poorly on most standardized tests, except for one area that he seems to well", and "not very creative".
- goatlover 2y ago
  What is a human brain without the rest of it's body? Humans aren't brains. Our nervous systems aren't just the brain either.
  - kenjackson 2y ago
    It's meant to explore a point. Unless your point is that AGI can only exist with a human body too.
    - goatlover 2y ago
      It's an open question as to whether AGI needs a (robot) body. It's also a big question whether the human brain can function in a meaningful capacity kept alive without a body.
chasd00 2y ago
i don't think making the same mistakes as a human counts as a feature. I see that a lot when people point out a flaw with an llm, the response is always "well a human would make the same mistake!". That's not much of an excuse, computers exist because they do the things humans can't do very well like following long repetitive lists of instructions. Further, upthread, there's discussion about adding emotions to an llm. An emotional computer that makes mistakes sometimes is pretty worthless as a "computer".
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  It's not about counting as a feature. It's the blatant logical fallacy. If a trait isn't a reason humans don't have a certain property then it's not a reason for machines either. Can't eat your cake and have it. >That's not much of an excuse, computers exist because they do the things humans can't do very well like following long repetitive lists of instructions. Computers exist because they are useful, nothing more and nothing less. If they were useful in a completely different way, they would still exist and be used.
goatlover 2y ago
It's objectively true that LLMs do not have bodies. To the extent general intelligence relies on being emobodied (allowing you to manipulate the world and learn from that), it's a legitimate thing to point out.