kilgnad

45 ms·

421.
by kilgnad 4y ago
In the last decade or so, there were several times I brought this up on HN (anonymously), and each time my opinion was attacked as not making any sense. Times change.
422.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The more amazing part in that article I was referring to was the imitation of self in the terminal. farewell.
423.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I don't agree with the speculation, I think there is missing information. but I feel it's a valid possibility IF there isn't any missing information that can invalidate his point. The difference between my stance and others h
424.
by kilgnad 4y ago
So what. He made a speculation. It's a valid speculation. You can disagree, and tell him you disagree but don't excommunicate him.
425.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Can anyone name a movie that was really good and really popular that diverged from this model heavily. By really popular I mean pretty much universally popular. Not niche popular.
426.
by kilgnad 4y ago
But not minding my own business and wanting to know more is something I'm willing to spend a little time and energy on asking about. Anyway the point is, his questions are valid. I myself wonder and just like you have the right to mind
427.
by kilgnad 4y ago
You might be right. But his questions are valid. In this day an age cancel culture has everyone pointing fingers and blaming everyone for just having opinions. Who cares man. All I care about is that those questions are legit. Why does he l
428.
by kilgnad 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion Anything that can be defined in terms of itself is recursion. This is the official definition and an opamp fits here. A lot of people are getting lost in the variations of the
429.
by kilgnad 4y ago
As long as a system can be defined in terms of itself it fits the definition of recursion if we are to follow the official definition of recursion. Whether that recursion is capable of doing certain things is another matter entirely. This i
430.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Well the AI has to infer what math is with many examples. You give it enough examples it will be able to calculate equations it's never seen before. But when you don't give it enough examples it does a best guess. This is what you
431.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I see. It seems to me a lot of the issues are precision problems right? chatGPT produces answers that look correct, and if you increase the precision along the correct path in this knowledge space the lookalike answer converges into the cor
432.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Humans don't even have "true understanding" if you define it as understanding everything. There are things we understand and things we don't. Same with chatGPT. This is new. Because prior to this, a computer literally ha
433.
by kilgnad 4y ago
People are talking about logic gates and computing. While these things are associated with electric circuits, strictly speaking, they don't have to be. It's sort of a separate domain all together. For something strictly an electri
434.
by kilgnad 4y ago
They can train an AI to turn bad prompts into good prompts.
435.
by kilgnad 4y ago
But I feel an AI can be trained to do this as well.
436.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I think "working well with others" can be learned by AI. Also when everything is AI that really no longer matters?
437.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Almost everything can be replaced by AI. I suggest for you to study politics. Politicians can be replaced by AI BUT there's a small time window before AI takes over where you can become a politician and make laws to ban AI, thereby sav
438.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Knowing which component of the prompt is required for the correct output indicates understanding. Especially when given the fact that the prompt as training data doesn't actually exist.
439.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>no there are tons of examples in the training set of verbatim copypastes from terminals. people post those on help forums and in documentation articles and so on. that's how it learned. So a bunch of stackoverflow examples and it c
440.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Agreed. In fact I think the two steps are remarkably similar in concept and an aspect of what human brains are actually doing. One thing is for sure though, there are certain responses chatGPT generates that are virtually impossible to &quo
441.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Exactly, there is no understanding. A generic opinion doesn't mean it doesn't understand. Think about it. It means it's either giving us the most statistically likely text completion OR it actually has a generic understan
442.
by kilgnad 4y ago
If we already know this then we already know it's self aware. No training data exists for faking itself in a Linux terminal. The concept of understanding must exist for chatGPT to create this concept out of thin air.
443.
by kilgnad 4y ago
What I'm saying is that it's capable of true understanding of intent and subject matter. It doesn't always understand but many times it does.
444.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I mean that perspective is so technically correct it can be applied to the human brain. My answer is just approximating the next set of text that should follow your prompt. But of course we both know that in a way these neural networks (bot
445.
by kilgnad 4y ago
We can't even define the word. It's just a point of comparison. Humans are doing this sort of thing we don't fully comprehend called understanding. The main question here is that if LLMs are doing something that can be descri
446.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Think of it this way. I ask the child 31234 * 2847374623. The child gives me exactly the correct answer. Then I ask the child 1 * 0 and the child gives me 2. I would say the child on a certain level understands the concept of multiplication
447.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No I'm not writing off the bad results. Also let's be clear. I'm not claiming that chatGPT has motivation or emotion. My claim is that it actually understands things. It understands self as well. My claim is that despite the
448.
by kilgnad 4y ago
It's not a ban. On HN they recently put a thread limit on depth. Either way your post is rude.i have a contrary opinion can I not express it without being accused of trolling? I assure you I am not. If anything, the majority shares the
449.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Imagine a talented improv actor with total retrograde amnesia, who is starring in his own biopic and doesn't know it. That's what ChatGPT's "self awareness" is. This part I agree. And that's my claim a tale
450.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Apologies. I didn't fully read the previous post so I interpreted it incorrectly you did read it. You don't just feed it docs. You feed it the entire text of the internet. Of course. I know this. As I made a mistake about you not

More ›