calf

44 ms·

721.
by calf 4y ago
Well their user name is Logical Monster, so.
722.
by calf 4y ago
I wish I were half as witty as you
723.
by calf 4y ago
The concern is that there could be an exponential advancement in AI over the next few decades. So GPT looks stupid right now, stochastic parrot and all, but after 15, 30 years? I'm on board with some kind of precautionary principle app
724.
by calf 4y ago
I would love to watch a reboot or remake.
725.
by calf 4y ago
Does the Apple Classical app include non-Western traditional music? It's interesting, what even is classical music? I bet there's music that crosses boundaries, like jazz-classical or pop-classical. Are those subgenres on the app?
726.
by calf 4y ago
That's a philosophical argument, whereas people are implicitly denying that ChatGPT can have higher level abstraction at all as if it were valid to claim that Stroustrup's contribution to C++ was ultimately just a way to write a
727.
by calf 4y ago
I don't understand that. In computer science everyone learned that computation is best described and explained at several levels of abstraction. E.g., HW/SW interface; machine code vs C++; RTL vs architecture, the list of levels o
728.
by calf 4y ago
ChatGPT is a glorified word predictor. It isn’t sentient. It doesn’t know what it’s saying, and yes, you can coax it into admitting that it wants to take over the world or saying hurtful things (although it was specially conditioned during
729.
by calf 4y ago
Yeah that is a neat hack one of the comments mentioned. Also if a model of computation that is not Turing complete can apparently do English, then what does that say about the computational complexity of English, this piques my curiosity.
730.
by calf 4y ago
If it were cloning people and genetic research there would be public condemnation. For some reason many AI scientists are being much more lax about what is happening.
731.
by calf 4y ago
Drives me nuts that scientists use Twitter x/n style writing. From Richard Feynman to Edward Tufte, we were told that PowerPoint talks are bad for science. And now Twitter writing style is uncritically accepted.
732.
by calf 4y ago
What is a feed forward network? Is that anything like the current-state and next-state functions for representing finite state machines?
733.
by calf 4y ago
Even if the outputs are indistinguishable there could be different internal algorithms and different computational efficiencies. In a way that is what these authors and Chomsky and probably other skeptics are concerned about: with a black b
734.
by calf 4y ago
The main issue is the inapplicability of a test designed for humans, because a LLM's cognition is very different. Contamination presumes thay the style of tests are applicable.
735.
by calf 4y ago
The common connection between programming for databases, for networks, and for multithreads/cores/processors is that all of them are about concurrency at different levels of abstraction. So American CS curricula do emphasize teac
736.
by calf 4y ago
So they quote an expert who says there's a distinction between bona fide novel structures and states, versus statistical heuristics that benefit from the scaling. Meanwhile, yet people claim ChatGPT has learned this or that capability,
737.
by calf 4y ago
I'm not dismissing the paper, I still have it bookmarked. But I already don't like an author who can't write the first 9 pages convincingly and then require the reader to read the rest of it. I'm also seeing this paper c
738.
by calf 4y ago
No because behavioral equivalence is used in systems engineering theory to mathematically prove that two control systems are equivalent. The mathematical proof is complete, e.g. for all internals state transitions and the cross product of t
739.
by calf 4y ago
Formal proof is problematic because English has no formal specification. Some people are working on this, it's a nascent area bringing formal methods (model checking) to neural network models of computation. But it's an interestin
740.
by calf 4y ago
The central question is that a controller is assumed to be specifiable and thus formally verifiable through model checking in principle. With a neural network you have a black box and for example with ChatGPT it doesn't even have a spe
741.
by calf 4y ago
Why can't calculators or WolframAlpha serve as a computational oracle for ChatGPT? It would seem as simple as assigning probably 1 to certain recognizable queries. Maybe the difficulty is that the very problem of choosing to use a calc
742.
by calf 4y ago
You're missing the admission of the author who wrote the paper. If you didn't get that then you're just overselling the refutation, by not understanding the stated premise more critically. Literally the author used the analog
743.
by calf 4y ago
So does AlphaGo has an internal model of Go's game theoretic structures, but nobody was asserting AlphaGo understands Go. Just because English is not specifiable does not give people an excuse to say the same model of computation, a ne
744.
by calf 4y ago
In 1st year engineering we learned about the concept of behavioral equivalence, with a digital or analog system you could formally show that two things do the same thing even though their internals are different. If only the debates about C
745.
by calf 4y ago
What's the difference between statistics and logic? They may have equivalences, but they're separate forms of mathematics. I'd say the same applies to different algorithms or models of computation, such as neural nets.
746.
by calf 4y ago
I read the first 9 pages, it claims to refute it but I don't agree with the premise. The author admits the status quo is like when doctors discovered lemons cured scurvy, but nobody knew why. So Noam's position is basically that d
747.
by calf 4y ago
And Chomsky is both a linguist and a cognitive scientist, and a philosopher as well. The people mentioned in Marcus's article, aren't they more single-field experts?
748.
by calf 4y ago
Not OP, but I'm not convinced by the talking point that a baby has an equivalent or greater petabytes of data because they are immersed in a sensory world. I can't quite put my finger on it but my feeling is that that line of reas
749.
by calf 4y ago
That reminds me of the whole most real numbers are irrational, in fact the vast-vast majority of points on the number line you see before you, are not rational numbers. Humans don't have a good intuition for maths. So guess what happen
750.
by calf 4y ago
I thought this comment about what science is was also insightful because it explains simply Chomsky's problem with pseudoscientific approaches: I believe your disagreements with Chomsky on politics does creep in to the discussion of A

More ›