deltaninenine

>Or just look at the votes on our comments.

Votes are a popularity contest. I have a lot of downvotes. So you win the popularity contest. It's fine. Im ok with that.

I'm more going for the correctness contest here. Who's actually right? That's all I care about here.

>Getting one person to post here with one opinion or another doesn't constitute useful data

This isn't true. One person lends data to your case. Why? Because my claim is that nearly all people on HN aren't fooled by chatGPT. So if you say it's so common then just find one.

My claim is that it's so uncommon you can't even find one.

>I gave my anecdotal evidence, and the evidence of numerous posts on HN and elsewhere you can easily search for

I searched for this. I could not find one. You claim it's easily found, so you can win this debate by simply finding one comment that proves your point and link it here. If it's as common as you say then at least one person can be found. This makes sense.

Bullshitting implies the bullshitter knows it's bullshit.

An hallucination does not imply the illusion is known to be an illusion by the person who is hallucinating.

Therefore bullshitting is the less accurate term here.

No. You just mis expressed your point with a logical mistake.

You wanted to explain why I can't find evidence for the Eliza effect on HN, but you didn't realize that it contradicts your overall point of the effect.

I exploited the flaw to point out the contradiction in your thinking. Your ideas are not logically coherent your following a sort of bias here where you're trying to construct ideas to support your bias.

Don't actually understand your joke here.

When you delete things from your hard drive that fits the definition of making your computer forget something.

Look up the definition of forget. It is not a human exclusive action. Therefore it is not "anthropomorphizing": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forget

>That's repeated a lot but it's not entirely accurate. No one can explain how an LLM gives the answers it does (not even the LLM).

Uh I literally said no one fully understands these networks. And you go on to say that my statement isn't accurate then confirm my statement by saying:

>No one can explain how an LLM gives the answers it does (not even the LLM).

I mean this is exactly what I said. We can't explain it... Because we don't fully understand it..

>But the people who build and train LLMs do know how they work -

No they actually don't. The surprising accurate responses of chatGPT were actually not predicted. Many experts literally do not fully understand what's going on. This is categorically true and I can quote them if you need it, but this is easily googable.

>I could feed my younger children that same misinformation and they wouldn't question it. I could tell my parents that their Alexa listens to everything they say and records it forever on a big disk on a satellite in orbit, and they would believe me.

>A Google researcher said that publicly (he got fired), and much discussion took place here. If I was more interested in the topic I could poll people,

I already polled people and did a Google search of HN.

The researcher who got fired by Google is an interesting case. The reason is because he's not referring to chatGPT or gpt3.5 or bard. In subsequent interviews he has said that he's referring to lambda. An internal google LLM that hasn't been released yet. He said that one is "awake" and specified directly that it's different from the LLMs the public currently plays with.

Nobody can confirm or deny that statement because we can't directly interact with the AI as Google has it locked down pretty hard.

>Bing search and customer service chatbots, for example, give a layer of indirection

There is no layer of indirection you are directly chatting with the AI. You are not having a third party describing his experience with the AI to you.

>I argue that too many people already have a bias towards believing ChatGPT/LLMs equals AGI, because the media has primed them to believe that.

No point in arguing if you don't have some form of evidence. My evidence is there isn't a single person on this thread who is fooled by AI or isn't aware of the limitations of current gen AIs.

You just need to find one person in this entire thread who fits your description, link it here and you'll be right as you falsified my statement. This is the data driven Conclusion.

Let's use data to get to the bottom of this. Seriously.

>doesn't actually happen often enough to care about.

That's my entire point. It doesn't happen often enough to care about.

Sounds like you have some anecdotal experience of it happening to your entire family and a lot of your friends.

I experience the opposite. It has happened to exactly none of my friends and family.

We do live in contradictory universes where you experience one thing and I experience another thing. Given the contradiction let's refer to the shared experience: nobody on this entire HN thread has experienced the Eliza effect. The shared experience proves my pov.

>Almost everyone I know is much more likely to believe AIs have already or will soon put them out of a job

This first part of your sentence has a higher likelihood of being true. The reason is because there are instances of it are already happening. It's limited given the limitations of LLMs but we are at a point where if the hallucinations are fixed then it can very much replace many jobs.

Nuclear strikes and slavery is a bit far fetched.

>A significant portion of the American population doesn't accept the results of the 2020 election. No amount of proof will change their mind.

This is different. There's obvious bias here. Many people don't want to believe the election is legit because of team and group mentality. People tend to believe what they want. Additionally, people can't "see" the results. It can't fully be proven because there is always a layer of indirection here where you need to trust a potential compromised source. From the perspective of the public what happened during the election can only be ascertained through a network of indirect sources so it's convenient for people to assume any one of those sources is compromised in a way such that the conclusion is closer to the one they desire.

For chatGPT seeing is believing. You can see the thing hallucinates right in front of your freaking eyes. There is no layer of indirection. There is no room for someone to lie to themselves. Additionally, the bias for chatGPT is actually in the other direction. Nobody wants to believe that an AI can trivialize their skill set. People would rather believe chatGPT is garbage because that is what they prefer to believe.

In fact I would argue this exact bias is the thing effecting many people right now. The same type of biases that make people believe the trump votes are rigged are the same type of biases that prevent people from even considering the fact that an LLM is more than just a stochastic parrot. They don't want to believe it... So they don't.

>Some experts, and lots of people who have not themselves built LLMs, such as Elon Musk, Yuval Noah Harari, Steve Wozniak.

Never denied this. I did not intentionally hide this. I will say your statement did not mention that one of the signers is the premier expert. The person who reignited interest in neural networks, Geoffrey Hinton.

It's not "some" experts. It's many many preeminent experts. It's more accurate to say, not "all" experts. That is the more fair characterization.

> People drive cars every day and can't explain the first thing about the technology. I think you grossly overestimate how deeply people understand technology they use every day. Just ask a cell phone user how cellular communications works.

Nobody fully understands these networks. Not even the people who build them. The "experts" admit this. What everyone understands is that these networks hallucinate. The hallucinations aren't deep things to understand, it's on the level of driving cars.

You misunderstand how trivial it is to use this technology and figure out the limitations just like you figure out how to drive a car. We are all talking about user level phenomenons. You don't even have to describe what a neuron is or what backpropagation is to understand "hallucinations". Hallucinations aren't technical level concepts.

>ChatGPT is already plugged into the Bing search engine, and into Windows, MS Office, and other products. New integrations and plugins get announced every day.

Yeah pretty much everyone I know has used LLMs in some form or manner. And none of them were fooled. I'm sure the same goes for the people you know. Yeah you characterized how popular LLMs are. What you failed to characterize is the proportion of people who are using the tool and getting fooled by it.

It is fact that the tool is popular and getting more popular but this says nothing about the topic at hand. How many people are getting fooled by chatGPT? Your just speculating the outcome based on how popular the tool is. Speculations prove nothing.

I'm still waiting for that one guy to come to this thread and tell everyone chatGPT is sentient. If one guy claims this then you're right I completely misunderstood how dumb people can get.

I mean don't even focus on this thread under my post. Let's focus on the entire thread under the main article. Is there even one person who completely thinks the AI is sentient?

Find one guy on this entire thread who is honestly fooled by chatGPT and I'll concede to your argument. If you can't find even one guy... Then if you're rational you'll see that my argument is true: nearly no one is fooled by chatGPT.

This is literally a data driven conclusion. Let's use some amateur science to get to the bottom of this.

That's just your opinion. I say we need to prove this out.

If a significant portion of the tech and non techy population anthropomorphized LLMs to the point where they don't understand that LLMs hallucinate then surely some of those people exist on HN.

If one of you readers is one such person who honestly has no idea what it means for chatGPT to "hallucinate" then let us know (and be honest, please don't troll).

My bet is no one will respond with affirmation because the amount of people who don't get it is miniscule.

>Future editions of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds will have long chapters about crypto and AI. If you think most people understand the tech and its limitations and don't act according to gullibility, ignorance, and greed that book should disabuse you.

This is not even close to being true.

First off almost everyone on HN is a layman. Very few people have had their hand at building actual chatGPT quality and scale LLMs. Almost everyone's knowledge both HN users and people who don't use HN get their info from the same stuff: constantly reading shit from the internet and playing with chatGPT itself.

If you think you're superior because you're in software or IT or you've done ML in different contexts? I'm here to tell you, that unless you're not a layman and actually build LLMs, you're not because all your info is from the same place as all the other people outside of tech.

That being said it's the actually the experts who started the extinction AI petition. The non laymen, or actual experts are the one with the more outlandish predictions.

Anyway an hour with chatGPT and reading some articles on LLMs is enough for anyone to know the boundaries of LLMs. You don't need to be in tech.

We can actually test this here on HN. Does anybody who has never built machine learning apps not understand what it means when chatGPT hallucinates? I'm looking for one dude in all of HN. If one person responds with a serious affirmation heck you may be right. But we both know that those numbers are very very low. So low that it's unlikely for anyone to affirm this in an honest way.

Any dude with an hour to spare will recognize the flaws. You think people are way to stupid. That's another thing about people in tech that get me, they think they're so smart. How much brain power do you actually think it takes to find out the limitations of chatGPT? Not much. I hate to tell you this but most people in tech are just slightly above average and their opinions on things outside of their domain (like LLMs) are also quite average.

Mind you, there will be stories of people that are fooled but those people are obviously a huge minority of chatGPT users.

>People’s susceptibility to anthropomorphizing an even slightly convincing computer program has been known since ELIZA, one of the first chatbots, in 1966. It’s called the ELIZA effect.

I'm tired of these arguments. Very very few people are anthropomorphizing chatgpt.. very few. The majority of people both technical and non technical who have played with chatGPT in a non trivial way are aware of the chatbots limitations. It's like recognizing a crazy person on the street. Humans are well equipped for that.

This argument characterizes the average person as some kind of stupid buffoon as if he/she can't tell chatGPT really screws shit up. Sure there are a few gullible outliers but as a generality his claim is simply completely false. Pretty much everyone and I mean everyone is aware about the limitations of LLMs.

This is a weak and repeated trope that's being regurgitated as if the critics are LLMs themselves.

Let me specify exactly what's going on. People who are afraid of/support AI are more speaking to the potential of AI. Why? Because just as much as this thing hallucinates about half the time it answers a complex question with an equally complex and correct answer and that answer in isolation is often indistinguishable or even at times superior to a humans answer.

Yes we know it hallucinates and forgets shit. This is obvious, no need to readdress an obvious weakness that everyone is aware about. If critics want to have a real discussion then they seriously need to address the actual strengths and phenomenons of LLMs instead of repeatedly highlighting the obvious weaknesses.

Because while we have somewhat of an explanation for the hallucinations we currently don't know how chatGPT was able to do something like this:

https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/

Read to the end of you haven't seen this. The ending is what is quite unexplainable by experts. You can't just trivialize that entire post as if it was just a statistical phenomenon. There's obviously an alternative angle here.

The problem is this type of intelligence is hard to define or quantify. Its like asking the question " what is art and what is not art".

Data driven hiring practices require hard definitions. One of these hard definition of intelligence is IQ. IQ is very correlated with job success and also various other skill sets related to job success.

From the company perspective, successful hiring using a data driven scientific approach is the right call simply because its the best metric we have on intelligence.

Obviously their are aspects to intelligence that currently aren't quantified but is it wise for a company to bet their future on gut feelings that are subject to bias and aspects of intelligence not in the realm of science?

Unfortunately no.

I'm pretty sure the Google interview process is somewhat of a data driven process but I can't be sure. Are any googlers in the know? Are specific interview question and answer pairs measured and correlated with the success of the employee? Or is it all qualitative judgement?

I'm referring to the public. Not the submission.

>The wisdom of the ages speaks of being ten times better.

This is an efficiency move. Cut the human out of the loop.

Looks like the failure is less about creating an assembly line and more about creating a mobile assembly line.

Google it. Its well known.

Long term damage to liver. You use it long enough your liver will die. But it's too hard to do a causal analysis on this as the timelines are measured in decades.

It is true that in science nothing can be proven but this fact doesn't apply if you think in terms of statistics. Science is broad and doesn't always give answers in terms of a boolean falsification. You can be given a ratio as the result.

This result is usually A probability established to a degree within the context of a sample size. This is the closest thing to proof that science can offer and we just go with it.

EBM goes a bit further then just a probability in the context of a sample size. There's a further degree of rigor in the qualitative sense that the probability is causal and not correlative. It's subtle but causality is even closer to proof then a correlative study.

The GP didn't talk about a certain nuance and used evidence based medicine to cover all forms of science.

A double blind placebo trial is the gold standard for testing causality. We don't have to go that far. We can use a hybrid of intuition and correlational tests, we can maybe sometimes not always need a placebo. The point is the causal test comes with a lot of technical challenges and we have options for other tests that are less challenging.

There is a spectrum of correctness and rigor for science and we should know when to utilize something extremely rigorous or less rigorous. The barbaric practices you describe only come from an lack of awareness of what statistical rigor and science is.

>Historically humans are not outcompeted by new tools, but humans using old tools are outcompeted by humans using new tools. It’s not “all humans vs the new tool”, as the tool has no agency.

Two things. First LLMs display more agency then the AIs before it. We have a trendline of increasing agency from the past to present. This points to a future of increasing agency possibly to the point of human level agency and beyond.

Second. When a human uses ai he becomes capable of doing the job of multiple people. If AI enables 1 percent of the population to do the job of 99 percent of the population that is effectively an apocalyptic outcome that is on the same level as an AI with agency taking over 100 percent of jobs. Trendline point towards a gradient heading towards this extreme, as we approach this extreme the environment slowly becomes more and more identical to what we expect to happen at the extreme.

Of course this is all speculation. But it is speculation that is now in the realm of possibility. To claim these are anything more than speculation or to deny the possibility that any of these predictions can occur are both unreasonable.