Generative AI is good at cooperating with people and bad at full automation

Re:Generative AI is good at cooperating with people and bad ... by og_kalu on Wednesday March 29, 2023 @01:42AM (#35353097)

The idea that updating weights is particularly necessary is questionable. Memory augmented llms are computationally universal. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04589

and make no mistake, in context learning can be used in a meaningful way to resolve deficiencies. gpt-3 getting 98.5% accuracy (on even very large numbers) on addition arithmetic by describing the algorithm of addition to be performed on 2 numbers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09066

In context learning is just overpowered. It's essentially implicit fine-tuning https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10559v2

as for asking questions, llms can do that just fine. anyone who's used bing will tell you as much.

You don't know what subjective experience cGPT may or may not be having. just like i don't actually know for you or you for me. you've simply chosen to assume such.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Generative AI is good at cooperating with people and bad ... by pmoriarty on Wednesday March 29, 2023 @03:59AM (#35354007)

"You don't know what subjective experience cGPT may or may not be having. just like i don't actually know for you or you for me. you've simply chosen to assume such."

This point is underappreciated by most people.

We are close to the stage when conversations with AI's will be indistinguishable from conversations with humans, and then philosophical quibbles about whether such beings are intelligent or conscious will be irrelevant to most people, as the proof will be in the pudding.

We're already past that stage in some limited ways, with some people and some AI's, but these limits will likely be overcome soon, and only some luddite holdouts will refuse to believe they're dealing with "real" people/beings.

[ Parent | on HN ]