a 4 year old would fail at this task.
does a 4 year old have intelligence?
2,402 karma · joined January 21, 2013
does a 4 year old have intelligence?
hehe, this is typical goal post moving.
never is a long time.
it seems humans might be too...?
my son is 4. when he was 2, I told him I love him. he clearly did not understand the concept or reciprocate.
I reinforced the word with actions that felt good: hugs, warmth, removing negative experience/emotion etc. Isn't that just associating words which align with certain "good inputs".
my son is 4 now and he gets it more, but still doesn't have a fully fleshed out understanding of the concept of "love" yet. He'll need to layer more language linked with experience to get a better "understanding".
LLMs have the language part, it seems that we'll link that with physical input/output + a reward system and ..... ? Intelligence/consciousness will emerge, maybe?
"but they don't _really_ feel" - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ what does that even mean? if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
i've laughed out loud at lots of GPT output and find it more engaging than most wetware next token generators.
>It is definitely not reasoning at all
read the paper. GPT4 is the real deal.
irrelevant.
my whole world view changed when I read https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf
now pair that with a larger memory, backtracking/revising and on-the-fly weight adjustment (aka, real-time "learning") and I think it might be game over.
add goals and motivations and maybe a vision system? game over for meat bags.
These advances are not only possible, they're inevitable. It's just too tantalising to leave alone.
planes fly but not like birds. does it matter from an "object moved from point A to B through the air" point of view? not really.
LLMs are kind of the same. it's obvious from even the most cursory examination that they're doing something quite different to statistical word mashing. is it being achieved in the same way as your gray matter? no.
in a black box sense, does it matter? also no.
30-50 is hard, primarily due to obligations you can't just walk away from. Your mortgage drains $Xk/month and the kids need braces is a bad time to try and find yourself ;)
Use your imagination.
Do you think that LLMs have hit their plateau? Not likely I'd say. With all the billions suddenly rushing into the space, you really think that ChatGPT v.X isn't going to replace you? Risky bet.
I said it's amazing in __similar__ ways to Conway's Game of Life.
i.e. a system which behaves in unexpected ways (emergent abilities) and is greater than the sum of its parts.
emergent behavior in this context is defined as: "emergent abilities, which we define as abilities that are not present in small models but are present in larger models"
>The emergent behavior of Conway's Game of Life arises purely out of the simple rules upon which the simulation proceeds -- a fundamental difference.
this is a meaningless distinction.
the visual cortex in your brain is also "just a pattern matching" system. guess it's not very impressive by your standard.
This[1] isn't my example (it's from another HN user), but if you work as a programmer and you're not absolutely jaw on the floor astonished by this example then I don't know what to say.
Explaining[2] the emergent behaviour is literally cutting edge research. Hand waving this behaviour away as just "probabilistically generating a likely next word" is ignorant.
It's amazing in similar ways to Conway's Game of Life.
[2]https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/11/characterizing-emergent-ph...
[1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/11/characterizing-emergent-ph...
. . .
>You are definitely right that most code is banal and glue
looks like you did see my main point.
whatever it is, it ain't making websites.
>what do you then distinguish as enlightened pursuits
painting your garage is getting pretty close to it I think.
>Google has “understood” English queries
you can't, with a straight face, be comparing a Google search to what ChatGPT is doing. C'mon man.
>In many cases it’s wrong. In many cases the result is below entry-level.
Once again I'm baffled by this dismissal. I don't think you actually understand what you're seeing with ChatGPT. There is very interesting emergent behaviour occurring. Trying to explain the behaviour is literally cutting edge research.
>but right now the quality is lacking
the technology was literal science fiction 3 years ago, what it can do is astonishing. If you're not jaw on the floor astonished then you simply don't understand what kind of a leap this represents.
the skepticism and the general dismissive tone on HN baffles me.
you're talking to a computer in English ffs and it not only understands you, it goes away and does useful work.
literal science fiction 5 years ago, and now it's somehow: yawn <insert random nitpick>????
talk about hard to impress!
let's not pretend it's otherwise.
... which involves fetching some data, displaying it, maybe doing some basic arithmetic and then shuffling it off to a DB?
drudgery.
bring the machines on so we don;t have to deal with this nonsense any more.
give it a rest mate. Most coding is garbage generic gluing of boilerplate and API calls.
Aligning buttons and agonizing over 18px vs 20px padding is a monumental waste of human capital. 99.999% of coding is basically an interface to a DB (fetch some data, display it, maybe do some basic arithmetic and then save the data).
A machine will do all that drudgery better and quicker. We're not there yet, but the writing is on the wall.
>and should not necessarily be reinventing the wheel again and again
you must be new to the job.
the web is already almost completely corrupted by SEO'd to hell garbage.
this[1] was an interesting read. Particularly the 'Emergent Prompting Strategies' and 'chain-of-thought prompting'.
I think we're a long way from sentient AI, but there is a real sense of "something" unusual and heretofore not achieved in computing. The responses to logic queries are a long way ahead of statistically driven word mashing.
[1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/11/characterizing-emergent-ph...