finite state machines can't process irrational numbers. there's nothing we can google that will change that.
136 karma · joined June 22, 2017
Sadly, having a wikipedia article does not mean something actually exists.
Increasing training data doesn't increase consistency. Each data point acts as a potential new axiom, and each axiom decreases consistency. GPT-4 is trained to satisfy humans, and humans are wildly inconsistent. Even if humans were perfectly consistent, attempting to satisfy multiple different humans simultaneously results in inconsistency. Additionally, even if GPT-4 were perfectly complete and consistent it still wouldn't have reached this state autonomously. So the difference between GPT-4 and intelligence, by my definition, is night and day.
> FWIW GPT-4, being a neural net, is more analog than not. It's driven by floating point values not 1's and 0's.
Floating points are digital 1's and 0's. Adding more digits is never going to make something analog.
> The values are imperfectly calculated (limited accuracy) as computer math always is.
Agreed.
>There is also a large element of pure randomness to the output of any of these LLMs.
Strongly disagree. There isn't a single element of randomness during the training stage. We know the exact architecture of the neural net, we know the exact data it was trained on, and we know the exact beam selection algorithms used to synthesize outputs. Every single step can be simulated, traced, and recreated to achieve the exact same results. The number of steps involved might overwhelm us, but that doesn't make it random.
> They don't get to control exactly what words they generate
We do get to control it, we just lose track of the inputs and then pretend it was all out of our control. But of course every single step was willed and controlled by us. We call it "random" for personal convenience, not because its actually true.
[INPUT] Scenario: "The morning of the high school dance Sarah placed her high heel shoes under her dress and then went shopping. That afternoon, her sister borrowed the shoes and later put them under Sarah's bed." Question: When Sarah gets ready, does she assume her shoes are under her dress?
[OUTPUT] Sarah placed her shoes under her dress before she went shopping, but her sister borrowed them and put them under Sarah's bed. Sarah doesn't know that her sister borrowed her shoes, so she may assume that they are still under her dress.
This would result in a positive ToM score, even when the entire program is just 1 static if-statement. The ToM score says nothing of the program's internal reasoning process, it only cares that it returned the desired output.
A traditional static program could ace the bar exam, or even a well-prepared stack of flash cards. We wouldn't say the flash cards are exhibiting intelligence though, only their creators.
> The whole discussion is about intelligence. I was replying to OP.
OP was replying to Scientific American's article making numerous unfounded claims of "intelligence." So the party you should be asking for a definition is Scientific American.
> MY definition of intelligence is degree of ability to apply prior experience to correctly predict future outcomes
And what constitutes a "prediction" exactly? If someone fails to catch a baseball, would you say it's still possible they correctly predicted how to catch it? Because, if not, that would mean control over a body is integral to intelligence. If yes, then any object could be claimed intelligent but lacking in bodily function. If something predicts the future without applying prior experience, does that make it more intelligent or less intelligent?
> you seem to want to side with OP and say that GPT-4 isn't intelligent - so it's YOUR definition of intelligence that would be needed support your position.
You're trying to put words in my mouth, but I will play along. I'll say intelligence is the ability to autonomously create increasingly complete and consistent axiomatic systems. Since GPT-4 is digital, operating according to decisions (axioms) determined solely by external programmers and external data with little to no concern for consistency, I would say it's not intelligent. However, if a similar schema were applied to some sort of analog computer that had the ability to fluctuate or disobey its instructions then there would be more room for debate.
I never said Steven Hawking wasn't intelligent, I was just pointing out obvious differences between the human brain and GPT-4. GPT-4 is unable to solve basic arithmetic problems without employing a traditional calculator. It also can't accurately summarize long books. It also can't program its own GPT-4.
> You haven't defined intelligence > We're talking about intelligence
If you want to talk about intelligence so badly, perhaps you should at least attempt to define it for yourself first? I don't like using poorly defined words, which is why the word "intelligence" didn't appear anywhere in my previous comment.
> The question is what can it DO
Is that your measure of intelligence? If something does less, are they then less intelligent? Because, by that standard, the body is integral to intelligence.
Agreed. However, the phrasing and context of the question did imply the brain is "just statistics" and somehow emerged from statistics. If we are to interpret this as "the brain functions on just statistics" then the answer is still "it does not" because the brain can be said to function on countless different systems simultaneously, such as pure counting, algebra, calculus, etc which would mean that its not "just statistics."
> It's akin to saying that we created the concept of "physics"
This will boil down to our exact definitions, but most people conceive of physics as having a generative mechanism. If something were to ever be "created", like an atom or a new car, we would retroactively declare it to have been created in accordance with "the laws of physics." We wouldn't make the same retroactive assessment with something like "the rules of chess" because there is nothing in the rules of chess justifying such a creation. So we choose to give physics a special status.
> we can use statistics to find functions that fit any real (ground truth) function
A given statistical model might fit a function of the universe, but so might other models. Physics describe a function of the universe, chemistry describes a function of the universe, biology describes a function of the universe, politics describe a function of the universe. Describing a ground truth is one thing, elevating the description itself to the status of ground truth is another.
> GPT4 have a Theory of Mind
You are misunderstanding ggm. That study is on ToM tasks referring to GPT's analysis and perceived recognition of the user's mind. It says nothing of GPT's own status as a mind. Nowhere in it is an ontological theory of mind actually defined. If you were to refute ggm's claim, you (or preferably the author of the original article) should be presenting your theory of mind, not GPT's.
Statistics is collecting and analyzing numerical data. But what is the numerical data quantifying? It's quantifying a second thing. If everything were "just statistics" then there would be nothing left to take statistics of. This would constitute "infinite regress" or a "turtles all the way down" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
>What do you think the most impressive things are that the brain could do, that GPT-4 couldn't ?
This depends on what we consider "impressive." The human brain can control an entire human body, for one. Even if we take away the body, GPT-4 fails all sorts of basic arithmetic and reasoning problems. Additionally, the human brain is organic, analog, holographic, and reacts to external electromagnetic stimulation.
because there is no generative mechanism in the definition of "statistics" with which to generate anything.
> What convinces you that the human brain isn't also just statistics at a massive scale?
Because the human brain created the concept of "statistics" so if statistics created the human brain this would mean statistics created statistics, leading to infinite regress.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-...
https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US
> Parties with whom information may be disclosed: Service providers, trusted businesses or persons that process information on Google’s behalf
You tell me, I was responding to your hypothetical question: "If you were actually worried about YouTube stealing your data, why do you keep giving it to them by using their service?"
>An ad blocker prevents you from seeing ads but it doesn't do anything to prevent resale of the data you volunteer
True. That's why I still volunteer as little data as possible.
Isn't that the problem? If a report is in regards to the content of a post, and we have limited time, why not start with the actual content being reported first and have the reporter's arbitrary comments be secondary?
those are not the difficulties of moderating though, those are the difficulties of general employment.
There is only one viable alternative to Youtube that I'm aware of. I use it whenever I can, but that doesn't change the fact that Youtube holds a monopoly.