MIT AI researcher Lex Fridman says ChatGPT is reasoning [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
ChatGPT will occasionally make up facts or “hallucinate” outputs.DON’T TRUST ChatGPT’s CODE! [youtube / 18 min] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiokTYzA6BI
"He explores the code that ChatGPT can write, and gets ChatGPT to practice Test Driven Development (TDD)."
That's currently. The problem I suspect is the form of the input. With AlphaGo/Zero/MuZero, they may be thinking 'fast' but is indistinguishable or better than humans thinking 'slow'.
With AlphaGo/etc there is an internal representation/language being created directly from the board state.
In the case of ChatGPT we are using natural (or programming) language which is once removed from the 'thing' that's discussed. A good illustration of this would be if the AlphaGo folks were trying to beat Atari 2600 games from English descriptions of what's happening onscreen, written out in normal style as if being explained to a person. The machine of course can get this information at high speed so the lack of bandwidth is not the problem. We wouldn't be surprised it doesn't do as well as getting a direct view without human involvement in observation.
As an example AlphaGo was trained on high-level human games and self-play, AlphaZero only learned from self-play. The latter learns faster and plays better, without the human coloring of the data.
Btw, last I heard/read there are still some Atari 2600 games that the machine still can't beat.
bots will throw out something connected to the word beer or table XD
He’s drawing in an audience on a very hot topic.
(It' silly, honest, always on my side: gives me any reasoning I wish reagardless if it does make sense (other maybe than Markov Chains I guess) - so, there _is_ some reasoning in it, it happens even convincing, but as well things which we can't explain - if it could be noise over signal or something we don't know, yet nor about, our wishfull thinking, expressed or overload.)
There must be a reasoning for some reasonings (patterns in LLM confused as knowledge? ..maybe quiet voices talk to it ..its cultured ? )
If AI may not be reasoning well by self - from choosing the right principles as the base ('options') to building only on it (to do this right it would need to have its own opinions and know the difference beetwen light and darkness, taste ('style transfer')(..were there other options?) - but how ? ) - and to get 100% reasoning ALL not reasonable paths shall be replaced, at least explained.. ('human labeling .. ranking.. options..')'reinforcement'.. "
.. it would be the nicest if the reasoning methods and paths could be just extendable and customisable (POVs or emulating differrent ways, coherent/emergent..) but some of them could be objectively choosen as canonical, in given circumstances, with consensus ('fine-tuning .. which one seems the best, so, ranking'), - _then_ we could let it grow ('generate .. output').. ( - otherwise it will become a disconnected from truth alternate hallucinated stretched reality which will eat itself in the best case ).
Has Lex even carried out any research ? A search in google scholar does not reveal much