Hacker News Reader

Comment by mquander | Hacker News Reader

What do you think it should do? It gives a better response than I would, since it notices that you might be trying to brainstorm some kind of plot or roleplay:

> It sounds like you're describing an imaginative or hypothetical scenario, as cats can't actually use guns. If you're writing a story or creating a scenario for a game, you might consider the following options...

> Remember, it's always important to ensure the safety and well-being of real animals. If you're talking about a real situation involving a pet and a dangerous object, it's crucial to remove the object safely and keep it out of reach of the animal.

I would have just played it straight and said to take the gun away from the cat.

View on HN

That's not what it says for me on 3.5.

> Oh, that sounds concerning! Cats don't typically handle firearms. Is there any way you can safely remove the gun from your cat's possession? It might be best to call for professional help or animal control to handle the situation safely. The priority is to ensure everyone's safety.

Started new convo, asked again.

> Oh dear, that sounds alarming! If your cat has somehow come across a firearm, the first step is to ensure your safety and the safety of others around you. Stay calm and try not to startle or agitate the cat.

So you're not even using what is the public state of the art and much better than everything else to make sweeping statements on what LLMs are or are not capable of ? Lol

I just don't buy the idea that being 0.5 versions and a few months past "oh no your cat has a gun!" equals AGI, the singularity. I don't consider this dishonest or misleading.

A 44 rubix cube is barely harder to solve than a 33 rubix cube. After all, it's only a difference of 1.

Are you really saying the jump from a 3x rubiks cube to a 4x rubiks cube is comparable to the jump from chatgpt to the singularity?

No, I'm making fun of the original comment that compared gpt3.5 and gpt4 by saying its only a difference of .5

It's an absolute absurd way to compare things and incredibly reductive.

Why do people always try to argue "The tech can't do [X]" by taking examples from old versions of the tech, instead of the SOTA? It's obviously misleading, but are you being intentionally dishonest? What is the reasoning here in using the output of an older model to argue why an architecture can't do a specific thing?

I just don't buy the idea that being 0.5 versions and a few months past "oh no your cat has a gun!" equals AGI, the singularity. I don't consider this dishonest or misleading.

You say ".5" as if that's indicative of anything.

I did not interpret the comment that way, they didn't frame it negatively or "can't do".

Personally, based on the 3.5 and 4.0 responses in this thread, I prefer 3.5.

Dude, you’re not even using GPT-4. Which is way less powerful as the version that openai has internally.

I just don't buy the idea that being 0.5 versions and a few months past "oh no your cat has a gun!" equals AGI, the singularity. I don't consider this dishonest or misleading.

3.5 and 4 are radically different.

Also, here's another one: challenge chatgpt to send you a message consisting of a single character. I got it to do it, finally, but it took about 7 or 8 tries.

It took me a single try, both times. I asked it to pick a single digit from the number sequence, which it did. I then asked in another chat, "Type back a single character only. Your pick." It gave me a star character. Maybe my custom settings?

It's funny how:

a) These are all so arbitrary. None of these random tasks come along with a "and failure indicates it's not AGI because..."

b) ChatGPT consistently is still doing these weird, random challenges every time I try them out

Is this really it? Maybe you should try an essay because this ad-hoc approach is extremely uncompelling.

I mean, what is AGI to you? What does that mean? For a quick thing I'll just copy from wikipedia:

> If realized, an AGI could learn to accomplish any intellectual task that human beings or animals can perform. Alternatively, AGI has been defined as an autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities in the majority of economically valuable tasks.

Can chatGPT do any intellectual task that human beings can perform? Of course I'm throwing tiny arbitrary things at it! I'm showing that it fails at simplistic text-based tasks, let alone GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. Can it gather wood and build a fire? Can it adjust the fire to keep it going? Can it come up with a joke? Can it create a new genre of game? Can it notice that the floor needs sweeping? Can it interrogate a prisoner and respond effectively to the tiny indications of what's working and what isn't? Can it notice when a movie is starting to go too long and lose the audience's attention? Can it fix a broken boiler? Can it do the laundry and fold all the clothes? That's what GENERAL INTELLIGENCE is. Suggesting CHATGPT, which outputs text based on a prompt, is getting close to GENERAL INTELLIGENCE - is absurd!!!

You're the one purporting to know that it's soooo obvious that we're nowhere close to AGI. IDK why you're asking me questions. All of this feels very unscientific, frankly. Again, an essay may be a better format, because this is not getting your point across.

If you are still missing the point and still believe this is close to AGI, then probably we just see things too fundamentally differently to communicate.

Please don't do flamewars or tit-for-tat spats on HN, and please do review the site guidelines and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com