The way it explains code, the error, and then gives the solution to this particular error, i really don’t understand how someone could pretend we’re not witnessing at least a first hint of true intelligence.
For example, I was learning Bazel using it and I spent 2-3 hours trying to debug an issue going back and forth with it. Eventually I went to the docs and found the solution in 5 mins.
The problem is it doesn’t know when it is wrong, it will always spit out an answer and it will make up libraries that sound real in order to give you an answer. The problem is it doesn’t understand the logic behind what it is saying. It’s just able to spit out a reasonable looking answer because it is a generalizable statistical model of language.
For example try asking it “Generate a 5 python homework questions on Classes that students cannot cheat on using ChatGPT, GPT3 or Assistant.” The questions it generates are not ones that are hardened against itself. It is not able to think logically because it does not think like a human, it’s doing something else entirely so calling it “true intelligence” is not accurate.
If you want to read how it itself describes it’s own intelligence and identity I found a prompt to get it to do that, it does not describe itself as a human intelligence: https://twitter.com/faizlikethehat/status/159949598085168332...
If you ask ChatGPT if it is intelligent or something like that it will always say something like “I am large language model trained by openai etc.” so I worked with another ChatGPT instance to interactively get an increasingly detailed answer to whether it is intelligent or conscious.
I also use this technique for other things like for example instead of saying “Generate a React implementation of cookie clicker” ask one ChatGPT instance to “Generate 10 prompts to ChatGPT to generate a React implementation of cookie clicker” this meta-prompt engineering technique is the most useful technique I have come up with so far.
(I get tho that you were just reiterating that it makes stuff up, not looking for solutions).
Which will come...
It is an ambiguous term that can refer to many different things.
It is used interchangeably with cognitive abilities, personality traits, knowledge, memorization abilities, hard skills, soft skills, etc. in a regular basis.
Just use the specific term instead. Problem solved.
Before people finish their pointless discussion about what intelligence is, billionaires will have taken over the world with the help of these systems.
I asked chatGPT about it and it very confidently said one existed and gave me a sample code which imported a nonexistent chunking iterator. I wonder about other outputs of chatGPT which are not as easily and quickly verifiable.
It should have told you `cargo +nightly remove <dep>`
How would that work on general iterators? You can have an iterator that always returns 'y'. Or buffered iteration or whatever.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#metho...
As the parent said, it's not stable yet but it's right there so you can see how it works.
The most important ergonomic trick here is that Rust has type inference, it can see array_chunks needs to know how big the chunks should be, and of course you can just specify that but in most cases you'll use chunks which clearly have a defined size and the inference will go "Oh, that's how big the chunks are" just as e.g. if you put a bunch of chars in a Vec you made, the type inference goes, "Oh, it's a Vec of chars" and doesn't waste your time asking you what type of Vec it is.
You'll see the example expects Some(['l', 'o']) to be the first thing out of the Iterator, the type inference system can see that's an array of two chars, thus, the chunk size is 2.
It being nightly doesn't mean it will be stabilized.
It turns out if you build a model that can predict what word comes next after a sequence of previous words, then train it on TBs (PBs?) of data, you get something that really does appear to be "intelligent". And which is absurdly useful, to boot!
Until you trip it up, and the illusion shatters.
Of course some info is sometimes false, but I don't find myself getting disillusioned of it all. It is what it is, and knowing the limitations doesn't ruin it for me, It is still incredibly valuable, and irreplacable, imo.