96 karma · joined February 4, 2020
Just your curious noematic entity.
"It can be done".
Thanks for the motivation!
P.S. Of course, I also read the article :).
What are we humans even doing when zooming out? We're processing the current inputs to determine what best to do in the present, nearest future or even far future. Sometimes, in a more relaxed space (say a "brainstorming" meeting), we relax our prediction capabilities to the point our ideas come from a hallucination realm if no boundaries are imposed. LLMs mimic these things in the spoken language space quite well.
I inferred this information by seeing the number of comments on HN (a relevant parameter in estimating the importance of an event imo), the time period 2009-2023 and then immediately after clicking seeing a tombstone. This took me under 2-3 seconds.
The rest of the info I wasn't going time to spend on was the motives etc. It's not the first postmortem I see, I was just curious to why by skipping all of the boilerplate. Omegle is not important to me, but I know it was quite a phenomenon .
My point was that GPT failed blatantly at inferring this same easy task.
https://sharegpt.com/c/yhV8Hjh
Is this a sign of falling GPT quality? I think this was extremely easy to infer.
You've underlined the major risk these LLMs are for humanity. For a brief time in the history of human race, after information was democratized, most of us (at least educated people) had to use our own critical faculties to understand the world we live in. Now, that capacity will be outsourced to custom LLMs, most of them derived from other pre-trained with some ideological biases built-in. The informational Dark Ages of the technological era.
If they provide the tools to filter through the garbage, it'll probably be standardized in some way as an interface to the web. So just as HTML and its satellite technologies limit and standardize the representational aspect of information on the web, I think this AI-interface will severely limit the knowledge/wisdom aspect you can derive from information on the web. It's a hard thing to put my finger on, I hope you can understand what I'm saying.
The funniest thing for me is how stupidly lazy are these jerks that employ GPT for such things. The printed book example really made me lol.
The simplest thing they could've done is use a service like quillbot to rephrase, just as I used here to rephrase my comment:
-----------------------
I chuckled. For now, this is just hilarious. However, it will grow worse when more new open-source LLMs emerge. Just wait till the near future if you thought people were naive enough to believe counterfeit comments from bots. The post-factual/post-truth age has arrived. Only isolated truths will remain when the internet ceases to be a reliable source of knowledge (like, ideally, Wikipedia, but even that is debatable). The remaining material will be an ocean of useless data. We'll have to relearn how to navigate the web, just as seafarers are specialists at navigating the seas.
The most amusing thing to me is how exceptionally sloppy these idiots are that use GPT for such things.
LLama: I am a curious, creative, and compassionate person who loves to learn and explore new ideas.
Me: answer that again
LLama: Again?
Me: yes, why not?
LLama: Why not?
Me: why are you parroting me?
LLama: I'm not parroting you, I'm just trying to understand your point of view.
Me: then just answer that again
LLama: Then just answer that again.
Me: Uhm, you are parroting me. Is this some kind of joke you're playing?
LLama: No, it's not a joke. I'm just repeating what you said.
Me: Why?
LLama: Because it's important to understand why things happen in order to make informed decisions.
Me: What the hell, I just want you to answer my question again. That's all. Can you please do that?
LLama: Yes, I can answer your question again.
Me: Do it.
Llama: Done.
Me: I don't see the answer.
LLama: I don't see the answer.
Me: Can you remember what question I asked you to answer?
LLama: Yes.
Me: What was it?
LLama: It was a bird.
This is the first time I had a good laugh while interacting with LLMs.
What I don't understand is how did they achieve giving this context to GPT, since afaik the context window is just 2048 tokens? It seems that it's not fine-tuning, but few-shot.
Nothing in the information space will be left untouched by the ML/AI revolution. I was a bit skeptical last years, but seeing this space evolve in the last 2-3 years left no question about it.
The only thing stopping this a Butlerian Jihad, probably. Actually, it probably can't be stopped.
Humanity as a whole seriously needs to start considering alternate incomes and ways to support people existing. We need to shift our perspective from the human individual as a value-producing asset to a right-to-exist-and-experiment-reality entity.
All of this is really awesome, but for me it's like admiring the exquisite beauty and calm of the blue sky in the center of a hurricane.
I'm still trying to adjust: am I too fatalistic or people are clearly ignoring of the tectonic shift that's happening?
I've felt the vicious cycle the article tells too: not playing enough made me dull, depressed and that in turn makes you loose the appetite for playing.
It was a good reminder, thanks.
Is intelligence necessarily organic matter based? Maybe not. Maybe somewhere in the universe a spontaneous self-replicating turing machine appeared. Maybe there is life on the event horizon of a black hole, or maybe a hot type of intelligence lives inside a star.
I think we can make all kinds of wild assumptions.
Would it be correct to think of NFTs in the same way, but adding a higher risk associated to it? (the risk of the copy leaking in the public and thus cancelling any benefit of the supposed ownership this NFT blockchain would grant - excluding the possibility of an NFT blockchain becoming some kind of worldwide enforced standard way of verifying ownership...but even then...)