I'd work on it myself if I would knew enough about it and would have enough free time.
Asking millions of humans to be responsible is asking water to be dry.
It should either be regulated to hell or we should accept that it'll escape if it's even possible with current technology.
Isn't it silly to jump to these conclusions when yourself are admitting you really don't know anything about the tech?
If you want to scrape random websites and have GPT hammer at them for old vulnerabilities, I think you could get that to work, but to what gain? You'd be spending a crap ton of cash on API requests and compute, and people do this without GPT obviously. Cost is probably not worth it here for attackers.
Then, I'd hope OpenAI would have some way to detect this and shut these people down. I doubt they do right now, but that'd be my hope ...
Is AI in the same category? Some respectable people think so.
What's eventually dangerous is that it may execute scripts on your own machine, so if it were to do some funky things, that could be rather the danger .. for yourself
How would GPT-4 make this more likely or scalable?
To me, this is just like saying "we don't know if the latest CPU released by intel will enable Linux to become intelligent"
What definition or description of intelligence do you use such that you doubt that language models could have it? Would you have had this same definition in the year 2010?
This is not "obvious" in any sense of the word. At best, it's highly debatable.
Because from where I sit it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Sure, it behaves as if it has some form of intelligence in the sense that it can take external input, perform actions in reaction to this input, and produce outputs dependent on the input.
This historically has been known as a computer program.
Again, just say what you think intelligence is and why you think LLMs don't have it. If you can't do that then you have no business expressing an opinion on the subject. You really aren't expressing an opinion at all.
This fantasy land you live in where people who have no formal training in the matter are making this high brow elegant reasoned argument doesn't exist and the reason you think the "other side of the argument" is just being insulting is because the burden of proof is not on us.
It doesn't help that half the time you guys post you directly contradict the main researcher's own assertions.
Even GPT-4 it is easy to get it into a loop where it's just swapping one wrong answer for another. It doesn't act like it is intelligent - it acts like it is trying to predict the next text to display! Because that is what it is doing!
What definition do you have for intelligence and how do LLMs fail to meet it?
I just can't take the idea that there is ambiguity as to whether these things have general problem solving skills seriously. They obviously do.
As I asked up-thread, if I had a chat window open with you, what's something you would be able to say or do that an unrestricted ChatGPT wouldn't?
And, of course, there are domains where ChatGPT will do better than you. Since I don't know your skill set I don't know what those domains are, but I assume you'd agree. Just like ChatGPT giving a bad schedule doesn't disprove it's intelligence, you not being able to come up with acrostics or pangrams easily (or whatever) doesn't disprove yours.
GPT being bad this way, and being bad at "substitute words in all your responses" means it is leaking the abstraction to us. It's because of how its built and how it works. It means it isn't a general problem solving thing: it's a text prediction thing.
GPT is super impressive, I don't know how many times I need to say that, but it isn't intelligent, it doesn't understand the problem, and it doesn't seem like it ever will get there.
That GPT can solve a wide variety of problems, including problems it's never seen before, is literally the definition of intelligence and pointing out results where it underperformed is not even attempting to rebut that.
> including problems it's never seen before
Can you demonstrate this?
> is literally the definition of intelligence
I wish it was this easy! Unfortunately, it is not. GPT says the definition of intelligence is:
Intelligence is a complex and multifaceted concept that is difficult to define precisely. Broadly speaking, intelligence refers to the ability to learn, understand, reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, adapt to new situations, and learn from experience. It encompasses a range of cognitive abilities, including verbal and spatial reasoning, memory, perception, and creativity. However, there is ongoing debate among researchers and scholars about the nature of intelligence and how to measure it, and no single definition or theory of intelligence has gained widespread acceptance.
Which, is pretty good!
I'm not saying it isn't impressive! Just that it very much seems to be really good at finding out what text should come next. I don't think that's general problem solving!
Giving it a SQL schema and getting valid queries out of it is super impressive, but I have no idea what it was trained on.
> I just can't take the idea that there is ambiguity as to whether these things have general problem solving skills seriously. They obviously do.
It is not obvious to me this is the case! Often I will get totally wrong answers, and I won't be able to get the correct answer out of it no matter how hard I try.
> what's something you would be able to say or do that an unrestricted ChatGPT wouldn't?
Well, I'd ask you clarifying questions, for one! GPT doesn't do this type of stuff without being forced to, and even then it fails at it.
Also if you asked me to do something like "replace the word 'a' with the word 'eleven' in all your replies to me" I won't do weird garbage stuff, like reply with:
"ok11y I will repl11ce all words with the word eleven when using the letter 'a'"
lol
Does a dog or cat have intelligence?
If you answered no, then I would ask if you don't you believe that by some measure a dog or cat has more intelligence than a rock?
And as a follow-on I would ask if you think GPT demonstrates more intelligence than a dog or a cat.
But perhaps you believe that in every one of these examples there is not a single case where it "obviously has some form of intelligence."
(I am really trying to highlight the semantic ambiguities)
Just like chatbots 20 years ago didn't, even though they could talk, too.
> replace all words "a" in your replies to me with the word "eleven" and all words "the" in your replies to me with the word "figmutter"
> Sure, I'll do my best to replace "a" with "eleven" and "the" with "figmutter" in my responses to you!
How can I assist you today?
> Tell me a brief story about yourself!
> Sure, here's a brief story about Eleven:
Eleven is a language model developed by OpenAI based on the GPT-3.5 architecture. Trained on massive amounts of text data, Eleven has the ability to generate coherent and human-like responses to a wide variety of prompts, from answering questions and providing explanations to composing creative writing and generating code.
Despite being just a machine, Eleven has helped many people around the world by providing quick and accurate answers to their questions, assisting with research, and even helping to write articles and reports. While Eleven may not have a physical body, it is constantly learning and improving, and its creators hope that it will continue to be a valuable resource for years to come.
lol? Very intelligent ...
It isn't general intelligence but I would argue that it is more intelligent than a new-born human being.
If a building was on fire and you had to save a running instance of stockfish or a newborn, you'd probably pick the newborn.
But! If you do say stockfish is intelligent, sure! GPT is too!