fl7305

28 ms·

361.
by fl7305 4y ago
If you look at the pension system today, people work for about 40 years, and are retired for about 20 years. If the average life expectancy for the retirees increases by 1 year, they'd have to work 6 months longer to keep the system ba
362.
by fl7305 4y ago
> So can we now please stop to mention all the time that the increase in life expectancy is only caused by infant mortality reduction when it's clearly not the case? My point was in regards to the GP: >> In the 1960's, th
363.
by fl7305 4y ago
Exactly. Or to put it differently: Is "GPT-4 is just a parrot" a falsifiable claim? If so, what does the test look like that would falsify it?
364.
by fl7305 4y ago
> Since humans have yet to figure out the whole process behind brain thinking/intelligence/abstractions, then there is no way they can replicate that into machines. By that logic, humans can't write a superhuman Chess&#x2F
365.
by fl7305 4y ago
Thanks, I'm testing various models myself, and am very interested in hearing about people's experiences with them. It looks like Alpaca 30billion 4 bit does better when thinking out loud. It starts with some prompt engineering:
366.
by fl7305 4y ago
> In the 1960's, the average lifespan was in the 60s Yes. At birth. The remaining life expectancy at 30/40/50/60 has not increased nearly as much as you would think from the increase in average lifespan at birth.
367.
by fl7305 4y ago
> Multi-core math on GPU and CPU is non-deterministic for performance and scheduling reasons. Ok, I see what you mean. I can see how that could be the case. It depends on how the software is designed. Now that I looked up it, I was surpr
368.
by fl7305 4y ago
> Well I do actually believe this! To me it's the only logical thing. The laws of physics apply equally to a brain and a computer, one is just a lot more fancy than the other one. I agree 100% with this statement taken in isolation.
369.
by fl7305 4y ago
Good point. Would it be that hard to write a Chrome plugin that adds a "Tensionmeter" to each Wikipedia page? Based on the edit and discussion history, the Tensionmeter could be green, yellow, or red. The different parts of the ar
370.
by fl7305 4y ago
Sure, if you drill down, everything is just a Turing machine. And then we can drill down even further where everything is just physics with atoms, quantum mechanics, etc. So you're not different from a computer. Both are just physics.
371.
by fl7305 4y ago
Another example of "evolved behavior" is here, where a robot is trained to walk, run, etc: https://mrl.snu.ac.kr/research/ProjectAgile/Agile.html This is done using neural networks. I believe a project l
372.
by fl7305 4y ago
> "They are the output of non-deterministic matrix multiplication operations" Just a nit-pick: Aren't neural networks and LLMs perfectly deterministic? I think you can reproduce GPT-4 perfectly if you have access to the sa
373.
by fl7305 4y ago
Good point! I hadn't thought of that. If that is the case, it would downgrade the achievement from "super impressive" to just "impressive". I spent some time trying to find it in other languages, but couldn't.
374.
by fl7305 4y ago
Thanks for saving me the time to write the same reply :) To expand a bit: I can write simple image processing code that will find lines in an image. But I can't write the code to perform OCR (optical character recognition). However, in
375.
by fl7305 4y ago
> "it’s not a living, breathing, thinking, autonomous organism" > "autonomous intelligence" > "what constitutes consciousness" > "autonomous thought" In my mind, this is a list of differen
376.
by fl7305 4y ago
> But don't you think that it's pretty likely that this, or something phrased slightly differently, appeared in the training data? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. It's definitely not "likely", see th
377.
by fl7305 4y ago
> And remixing stuff it has heard before is exactly what ChatGPT is doing. Check out my "the confetti has left the cannon" example above. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35346683 Maybe still "remixing
378.
by fl7305 4y ago
Thanks. To get to what I think is the core of your argument (?) > ChatGPT simply "finds" training data where someone asked a similar question, and produces the likely response, which is an idea that it has actually "heard,
379.
by fl7305 4y ago
> There’s no need to ascribe any belief that they can evolve, modify themselves, or spontaneously develop intelligence. But neural networks clearly evolve and are modified during training. Otherwise they would never get any better than a
380.
by fl7305 4y ago
> I've started to suspect that generating code is actually one of the easier things for a predictive text completion model to achieve. > Programming languages are a whole lot more structured and predictable than human language. &
381.
by fl7305 4y ago
> it is not skilled in any tasks other than that for which it is designed. But it wasn't designed. It's not a computer program, where one can make confident predictions about its limitations based on the source code. It's
382.
by fl7305 4y ago
> the model of the world, theory of mind, etc. are statistical illusions which have observable differences from the real thing. Is that a falsifiable claim? What would an empirical test look like that would determine whether the claim (
383.
by fl7305 4y ago
> Didn't see it, but they only use one type of test to test theory of mind. Excuse me if I'm skeptical that that proves it has theory of mind. Well, it looked convincing to me. But sure, this is a new field, maybe they made som
384.
by fl7305 4y ago
Some examples below. What do you see in the LLM design that makes it not Turing complete? Here's one example: Prompt: Please pretend you are a CPU. Execute the following Python program and show what the output would be. Respond o
385.
by fl7305 4y ago
> figuring out what people are thinking in person Have you seen the latest research, where GPT-4 is shown to have "Theory of Mind"-like ability (what people are thinking) at a human 7-year old level? https://arxiv.or
386.
by fl7305 4y ago
> give them a small program and some inputs, then tell them to tell you the outputs for each of the inputs I just tried this with all three versions of ChatGPT (3.5 legacy, 3.5, 4), and they all did it correctly. >In order to be Turin
387.
by fl7305 4y ago
> These LLM's are not Turing-complete. Aren't they? I view them as "language processors", that execute one token (instruction) at a time, and use the token window as their working memory. Sure, they have a limit to th
388.
by fl7305 4y ago
> The architecture is feedforward, which implies it answers each query in an amount of time bounded by some function. Are you talking about each step where it produces a new output token? If so, sure. But how is that different from any C
389.
by fl7305 4y ago
"GPT works by predicting the next token based on the previous" Technically true, but a very limited description in my view. Any computer program can be said to do the same thing. A program has a set of instructions and an internal