I did an experiment recently where I asked ChatGPT to "tell me an idea [you] have never heard before". ChatGPT replied with what sounded like an idea for a startup, which was delivering farm-fresh vegetables to customers' doors. This is of course not an idea it has never heard before, it's on the internet.
If you asked a human this, they would give you an idea they had never heard before, whereas ChatGPT simply "finds" training data where someone asked a similar question, and produces the likely response, which is an idea that it has actually "heard," or seen in its training data, before. (Obviously a gross simplification of the algorithm but the point stands.)
This is a difference between ChatGPT's algorithm and human reasoning. The things that you mention, the model of the world, theory of mind, etc. are statistical illusions which have observable differences from the real thing.
Am I wrong? I'm open to persuasion.
Is that a falsifiable claim?
What would an empirical test look like that would determine whether the claim ("GPT-4 does not have a model of the world") is correct or not?
> ChatGPT simply "finds" training data where someone asked a similar question, and produces the likely response, which is an idea that it has actually "heard," or seen in its training data, before.
I can definitely see a scenario where we manage to build an ultra-intelligent machine that can figure out any logical puzzle we put to it, but where it still isn't "creative" in any way.
But GPT-4 seems to be not just intelligent, but also creative.
Have you seen the "confetti has left the cannon" example?
For the curious, here was the conversation I had:
ME: What's another saying similar to: "The cat is out of the bag" or "The genie is out of the bottle"?
chatgpt: Another similar saying is "the toothpaste is out of the tube." Like the other two expressions, this phrase conveys the idea that something has been revealed or unleashed, and it cannot be undone or put back into its original state.
ME: Can you invent a new phrase that has the same meaning, which is completely new?
chatgpt: Certainly! Here's a new phrase with a similar meaning: "The confetti has left the cannon." This phrase suggests that once something is out in the open or has happened, it's impossible to reverse or contain it, much like confetti that has been shot out of a cannon during a celebration.
I don't think so, but I could be wrong. It's definitely not "likely", see the math below.
I base that on the fact that people seemed to spend quite a bit of time trying to find the phrase "the confetti has left the cannon" that GPT-4 phrased. It seems Google search has no records of it before then?
I've seen many other examples where GPT-4 can translate sentences between using different types of idioms, and I just can't picture all these weird examples already being present on the Internet?
Do you think GPT-4 is a stochastic parrot that just has a large database of responses?
If so, how would we test that claim? What logical and reasoning problems can we give it where it fails to answer, but a human doesn't?
My understanding is that even with an extremely limited vocabulary of 32 words, you quickly run out of atoms in the universe (10^80) if you string more than 50 words together. If your vocabulary instead is 10k words, you reach 10^80 combinations after 20 words.
By training the LLMs on "fill in the missing word", they were forced to evolve ever more sophisticated algorithms.
If you look at the performance over the last 5 years of increasingly larger LLMs, there was a hockey-stick jump in performance 1-2 years ago. My hunch is that is when they started evolving structures to generate better responses by using logic and reasoning instead of lookup tables.
Could it be that the expression in some form has been used in languages other than English?
If that is the case, it would downgrade the achievement from "super impressive" to just "impressive".
I spent some time trying to find it in other languages, but couldn't. Doesn't prove much of course, hopefully native speakers can weigh in on this.
I did find this though:
'TIL that a young stripper named Shelly Bauman lost her leg in a freak confetti cannon accident. She sued and used the money from the settlement to open Seattle's first gay bar, which she named "Shelly's Leg."'
Certainly, Midjourney's "creativity" is different from human creativity. But it is producing results that we marvel at. It's creative not because it's doing the exact same philosophical thing humans do, but because it can produce the same effect.
And I think many situations are like that. We can always say that human creativity/reasoning/x will always be different from artificial reasoning. But even today, GPT's statistical model replicates many aspects of human reasoning virtually. Is that really an illusion (implying its fake and potentially useless), or is it just a different way of achieving a similar result?
Plus, different models will excel at different thing. GPT's model will excel at synthesizing answers from far more information than a single human will ever be able to know. Does it really matter if it's not identical to human reasoning on a philosophical or biological level, if it can do things humans can't do?
At the end of the day, some of these discussions feel like bike shedding about what words like "reasoning" mean philosophically. But what will ultimately matter is how well these models perform at real world tasks, and what impact that will have on humanity. It doesn't really matter if it's virtualized reasoning or "real" human reasoning at that point.
Absolutely, and I hope none of my comments are taken in a way that disparages how amazing ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion et al. are. I'm just debating how humanlike they are.
> Is that really an illusion (implying its fake and potentially useless)
I don't think that because it's an illusion means that its useless. Magnets look like telekinesis, but that effect being an illusion doesn't mean that magnets are useless; far from it, and once we admit that they are what they are, they become even more useful.
> Plus, different models will excel at different thing. GPT's model will excel at synthesizing answers from far more information than a single human will ever be able to know. Does it really matter if it's not identical to human reasoning on a philosophical or biological level, if it can do things humans can't do?
It only matters if people are trying to say that ChatGPT is essentially human, that idea is all I was replying to. I completely agree with you here.
But that's the point, they do. Even on HN there are many comments saying that humans are just fancy autocomplete, i.e. there's no fundamental difference between humans and LLMs.
I think that's a straw man. No one disagrees that humans and LLMs produce cognition differently. One uses a wet, squishy brain. The other uses silicon chips. There's no disagreement here.
Well then, that settles the debate!
There's a separate debate on whether the brain produces human thoughts in a similar way to ChatGPT's non-human thought. The question here is whether brains are essentially biological LLMs, and whether GPT's current limitations relative to humans could be overcome simply by scaling up the number of GPT's parameters to match or exceed the number of neurons in the human brain. But whether or not that turns out to be the case, it would not mean that AIs are the same as humans, or use exactly the same processes to think and reason, and no one is claiming that.
I'm saying using a word invented to describe animals behavior, "thought" to describe a large language model has no discernible meaning other than OP thinks it works like an animal brain.
If OP thinks it's an open question whether it works like an animal, OP should find a better word than "thought".
A OS stores "memories" but nobody argues whether the OS fondly recalls the day their son was born.
When people are debating how the LLM works and you call what the LLM does "thought" it's perfectly reasonable to conclude you believe the human brain works essentially the same as an LLM.
I just asked ChatGPT 4.0 and here's my question and the response, in the interest of full disclosure I edited out the part that I thought wasn't relevant so as not to bore:
"...if I call your processes "thoughts" is that the correct term? If not what term should I use?"
"If you want to describe the processes of an AI language model like me, it's more accurate to use terms such as "information processing," "pattern recognition," or "data-driven predictions." While these terms don't fully capture the complexity of the underlying algorithms, they are more appropriate than "thoughts," which implies consciousness and self-awareness that AI models like me do not possess.
Using the term "thoughts" might be misleading, as it could imply that the AI has a subjective experience or a sense of understanding, which is not the case. Instead, I rely on advanced algorithms to generate responses based on the patterns and associations learned from the data during my training."
So ChatGPT doesn't state you used the correct term.
I genuinely wonder if you think ChatGPT is consciouss and self-aware and you used a word that implied that intentionally, or if you just like how the word "thought" sounds and are indifferent to what people think you are implying.
Perhaps you’re right that the term thought has too much baggage. I’m just saying that if you look at it at naively, it’s engaging in forms of abstractions, reasoning, world modeling, invention, and so on that seem a lot like “thought”. If a human told you they were doing those things, you’d say they were thinking, right?
I agree it’s not thought in exactly the way that we are used to using the word, but I think it can be classified as a type of thought.
Yes, I noticed. Putting "non human" in front of thought doesn't help. It's like putting the word "four sides" in front of triangle.
I doubt parent uses the word "thought" to describe how a thermostat, calculator, or "Hello world" program works.
Using it to describe ChatGPT has no discernable semantic meaning other than OP believes ChatGPT works like a human brain.
LLMs'may prove a useful analogy as to how parts of human intelligence operate, an analogy that, at the very least, should be thoroughly researched.
A simple tool can’t. A « mind » that is coming in our world should, right ?
Just like all the marvel and DC where super-human are still accountable for their mistakes, their super powers are no excuse.
And remixing stuff it has heard before is exactly what ChatGPT is doing. What it sucks at is the "feels like it's new" part, but fundamentally it would be quite easily capable of creating output that combines concepts with maximally negative correlation, the only thing that's truly missing is the ability to interpret the prompt as an instruction to do that.
How does one actually measure novelty, without having to know everything first?
Check out my "the confetti has left the cannon" example above.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35346683
Maybe still "remixing", but it sure feels like new to me.
> The BerryPulse is an innovative, eco-friendly device that captures the energy released during the natural decomposition of berries to produce heat and electricity. The device comprises a closed container, where a cluster of berries is placed in a specially designed compartment, acting as an organic fuel source. The decomposition process is intensified using a biodegradable catalyst, which accelerates the natural breakdown of the berries while ensuring minimal environmental impact.
It can also write code for novel use cases that have never been done before. I gave it a task like this a few days ago and it got it right on the first try. There are literally millions of empirical data points that contradict you.
It's just empty excitement, not a well-reasoned argument.
You aren't answering because saying no will sound ridiculous. We all know it requires reasoning.
As for an "attribute of importance", I guess that's subjective, but I've used ChatGPT to write code in a few minutes that would have taken me hours of research and implementation. I've shipped that code to thousands of people. That's enough for it to be important to me, even ignoring other applications, but you certainly have the right to remain unimpressed if you so choose.
I'm using the common, colloquial definition of reasoning. I don't think we need an academic treatise to say that passing the bar exam (without copying the answers) or writing code for a novel task requires reasoning.
You're right that we don't fully understand how the LLM is doing this, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
If he had a complete answer to your questions then he would keep his mouth shut and go directly to META and collect $2 BN USD or get a Nobel prize (or both). What you seem to want is a peer-reviewed academic paper but what we're doing here is brainstorming about what is going on in these LLMs.
He's definitely onto something here: LLM models, at the very least, appear to generate reasonable human-like statements about human concepts. ChatGPT et al are useful in the same way a human assistant is useful. Most remarkably, they appear to think like we do. We need to understand how these MOFOs work b/c in a few years they're going to be everywhere.
IIRC an old "Far Side" Gary Larson cartoon depicts two bears just outside their cave, arrows in their limbs and butts, fighting off a hungry bunch of cave men. One bear says to the other "Seems there's more and more of these every year!"
Well, unless we're careful, next time we're going to be the bears!
In ChatGPT the language-model and world-model are really just the same model, which makes a lot of sense.
It's a bit like the Sagan quote: "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe".
Sometimes for GPT to "just" complete the next word in a way that humans find plausible, it must, along the way, develop a model of the world, theory of mind, abstract reasoning. etc. Because the models are opaque, we can't yet point to a certain batch of CPU cycles and say "there! it just engaged in abstract reasoning". But we can see from the output that to some extent it's happening, somehow.
We also see effects like this when looking at collective intelligence of bees and ants. While each individual insect is only performing simple actions with extremely limited cognitive processing, it can add up to highly complex and intelligent/adaptive mechanics at the level of the swarm. There are many phenomena like this in nature.