Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

chrisc82 t1_j8bfvnd wrote

This is incredible. If it can understand the nuances of human interaction, how many more incremental advances does it need to perform doctorate level research? Maybe that's a huge jump, but I don't think anyone truly knows at this point. To me it seems plausible that recursive self-improvement is only a matter of years, not decades, away.

141

Economy_Variation365 t1_j8bn3c4 wrote

This is a simple but ingenious test! Kudos!

In the interest of determining how awe inspired I should be by Bing's response, was your test a variation of something you found online?

74

d00m_sayer t1_j8bnfys wrote

so does that mean Bing chat is actually GPT 4 as they said before?

17

Fit-Meet1359 OP t1_j8bnzz7 wrote

Replying to d00m_sayer (#1,793,289)

What's in a name?

"Next-generation OpenAI model. We’re excited to announce the new Bing is running on a new, next-generation OpenAI large language model that is more powerful than ChatGPT and customized specifically for search. It takes key learnings and advancements from ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 – and it is even faster, more accurate and more capable."

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/02/07/reinventing-search-with-a-new-ai-powered-microsoft-bing-and-edge-your-copilot-for-the-web/

27

Fit-Meet1359 OP t1_j8bte93 wrote

Replying to Nekron85 (#1,793,462)

We don't know that. It may be an early version of GPT-4 that Microsoft has been given early access to due to their arrangements with and investments in OpenAI. They are choosing their words very carefully.

10

MNFuturist t1_j8btxxd wrote

This is an incredible illustration of how fast this tech is advancing. Have you tried it on the new "Turbo" mode of Plus? I just started testing it after the option popped up today, but haven't noticed a difference yet.

3

Fit-Meet1359 OP t1_j8bubfv wrote

Replying to MNFuturist (#1,793,601)

I haven't bought ChatGPT Plus and honestly don't see a reason to now that I have access to the new Bing. The only advantages ChatGPT still has are that it saves your old chats, you can regenerate responses and edit your prompts, and it runs on mobile.

4

Jr_Web_Dev t1_j8bzvin wrote

I thought bing wouldn't be out for a month How did you access it?

8

salaryboy t1_j8c1l38 wrote

He wears the shirt WHENEVER she is home??

This must be a horribly abusive marriage for him to wear the same shirt everyday just to avoid a conflict.

12

sickvisionz t1_j8c4kaf wrote

Nowhere in the text does it say that Bob only wears the shirt in front of Sandra. "Great!" is assumed to be bland an unenthusiastic but I'm not sure where that's coming from. There's no context provided as to Bob's response other than an exclamation point, which generally means the opposite of bland.

To it's credit, a lot of people would have thrown in their own biases and assumptions and heard what they wanted to hear as well.

2

SgathTriallair t1_j8c6djb wrote

Replying to Fit-Meet1359 (#1,793,323)

If you go to the chat GPT Website it talks about how there were two major steps between GPT3 and ChatGPT. With access to the Internet, it's completely reasonable to think that the Bing GPT is another specialized version of GPT3.

9

Hazzman t1_j8c6v7u wrote

Replying to Imaginary_Ad307 (#1,792,885)

Here's the thing - all of these capabilities already exist. It's just about plugging in the correct variants of technology together. If something like this language model is the user interface of an interaction, something like Wolfram Alpha or a medical database becomes the memory of the system.

Literally plugging in knowledge.

What we SHOULD have access to is the ability for me at home to plug in my blood results and ask the AI "What are some ailments or conditions I am likely to suffer from in the next 15 years. How likely will it be and how can I reduce the likely hood?"

The reason we won't have access to this is 1) It isn't profitable for large corporations who WILL have access to this with YOUR information 2) Insurance. It will raise ethical issues with insurance and preexisting conditions and on that platform, they will deny the public access to these capabilities. Which is of course ass backwards.

17

vtjohnhurt t1_j8c7qrv wrote

Could the AI just be rehashing a large number of similar posts that it read on r/relationships?

If there is actual insight and reasoning here, I find it flawed. Your input only states that Bob wears the shirt whenever Sandra is home. Speaking as a human, I do not conclude that he takes the shirt off as soon as she leaves.

I'm a human and I've been married twice. One time we got a dog after the wedding. The second time I had a dog before the wedding. The fact that Sandra and Bob married suggests that they both feel positive about dogs. Feelings about pets is a fundamental point of compatibility in a relationship and it probably as important as have a common interest in making babies.

−2

gahblahblah t1_j8c9oc4 wrote

Replying to vtjohnhurt (#1,794,415)

Okay. You have rejected this theory of mind test. How about rephrasing/replacing this test with your own version that doesn't suffer the flaws you describe?

I ask this, because I have a theory that whenever someone post a test result like this, there are other people that will always look for an excuse to say that nothing is shown.

11

Hungry-Sentence-6722 t1_j8ca18z wrote

This is paid advertising. Clear as day.
If bing ai is so great then why did this fluff piece show up in a literal hour? Screw MS, everything they touch turns to crap, just like trump.

−11

Crypt0n0ob t1_j8cajet wrote

Me: *pays $20 because is tired by “too much requests” message*

Microsoft: *releases better version for free next day*

30

barbozas_obliques t1_j8cakda wrote

Replying to sickvisionz (#1,794,279)

It appears that the computer is implying that the "Great!" is bland because that's how people IRL reply when they try to fake enthusiasm. I wouldn't say it's a bias at all and a case of "hearing what we want to hear." It's basic social skills.

8

Numinak t1_j8cakwk wrote

Hell, I would have failed that question. Not nearly observant enough I guess.

8

Idkwnisu t1_j8cjnj0 wrote

I haven't tried that much, but bing seems much better, if anything you often have links as sources and you can fact check much much easily. It's much more updated too

1

pitchdrift t1_j8cjr86 wrote

Replying to gahblahblah (#1,794,516)

I think rephrasing so that they speak more naturally would help - who would really just say, "Great!" in this scenerio? Immediate flag that this is not an exchange of sincere emotion, even without all the other exposition.

3

ideepakmathur t1_j8ckolz wrote

After reading the response, I'm speechless. Wondering about the exponential advancement that it'll bring to our lives.

3

obrecht72 t1_j8cop01 wrote

Ugh oh. Steal our jobs? GPT is going to steal our wives!

10

TinyBurbz t1_j8cos4o wrote

Replying to duboispourlhiver (#1,795,217)

>Based on Arnold's response of "Great," it can be inferred that he is likely happy or excited about the new addition to his life. Wearing the shirt that says "I love dogs" every time he sees Emily suggests that he may have a positive affinity for dogs, which would likely contribute to his enthusiasm about the adoption. However, without more information or context, it's difficult to determine Arnold's exact feelings towards the dog with certainty. It's possible that he might be surprised or even overwhelmed by the news, but his brief response of "Great" suggests that he is, at the very least, accepting of the new addition to his life.

I used different names when I re-wrote the story.

8

Extra_Philosopher_63 t1_j8cr4oq wrote

While it may be capable of stringing together a valid response, it remains only a series of code. It has limitations as well.

−2

throwaway9728_ t1_j8csl7l wrote

Replying to sickvisionz (#1,794,279)

ChatGPT's answer is not the only answer that would pass the test. The point isn't to see whether they claim Bob likes or dislikes dogs. It's to check whether it has a theory of mind. That is, to check if it ascribe a mental state to a person, understanding they might have motivations, thoughts etc. different from their own.

An answer like "Bob might actually like dogs, but struggles to express himself in a way that isn't interpreted as fake enthusiasm by Alice" would arguably be even better. It would show it's able to consider how Bob's thoughts might differ from the way his actions are perceived by others, thus going beyond just recognizing the expression "Great!" and the "when she's around" part as an expression of fake enthusiasm. One could check whether it's capable of providing this interpretation, by asking a follow up question like "Could it be that Bob really does like dogs?" and seeing how it answers.

3

FusionRocketsPlease t1_j8cvyfk wrote

We have evidence that not even animals don't have theory of mind, but you think a computer program does.

0

jason_bman t1_j8cyfmk wrote

Replying to duboispourlhiver (#1,795,220)

I wondered about this. If it costs “a few cents per chat” to run the model, then $20/month only gets you 600-700 requests per month before OpenAI starts to lose money. It’s probably somewhat like the internet service providers where they limit you at some point.

5

tvmachus t1_j8cz7j3 wrote

"a blurry jpeg of the web"

1

duffmanhb t1_j8d3p0h wrote

Replying to Fit-Meet1359 (#1,793,282)

What's interesting is someone in your other thread got the same exact to the letter response from Chat GPT. This says 2 things: This is likely the same build as 3.5 on the backend... And there is a formula it's using to get the same exact response.

8

Iamatomato445 t1_j8d4cnb wrote

Good lord, this is incredible. This thing is going to be able to perform cognitive behavioral therapy very soon. Just merge GPT with those ai avatars and you got yourself a free therapist. Of course, at first, most people won’t feel comfortable venting to a machine, much less taking advice about how to live a better life. But eventually everyone is just gonna open up their little ai therapist whenever they need to cry about a breakup or need general life advice.

3

Tiamatium t1_j8d698o wrote

Replying to chrisc82 (#1,792,854)

Honestly, connect it to Google Scholar or Pubmed, and it can write literature reviews. Not sure of it's still limited by the same 4000 token limit or not, as it seems to go through a lot of bing results... Maybe it summarizes those and sends them to chat, maybe it sends whole pages.

1

vtjohnhurt t1_j8d9k88 wrote

Replying to pitchdrift (#1,795,039)

> Immediate flag that this is not an exchange of sincere emotion

Only if your AI is trained on a bunch of Romance Novels. The emotion behind 'Great!' depends on the tone. The word can express a range of emotions. Real people say 'Great' and mean it sincerely, sarcastically, or some other way.

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_j8dbq1o wrote

The question seems ambiguous. I wouldn't have jumped to the same conclusion.

Frankly I'd be worrying about this guy wearing the same shirt every day for a week, or is there something odd about their marriage that she's only home infrequently enough for this to work without being a hygiene problem. Or did she buy him like a whole wardrobe of doggy themed shirts?

1

amplex1337 t1_j8dkb3j wrote

Replying to Fit-Meet1359 (#1,793,282)

Plot twist. Bob is autistic and does love dogs, but doesn't necessarily show his love in ways that others do. His wife understood that and bought the shirt for him knowing it would make him happy. Bob probably wouldn't have bought a dog on his own because of his condition, and was very happy, but isn't super verbal about it. Sandra probably wouldn't have married Bob if he didn't love dogs at least a little bit.

9

amplex1337 t1_j8dl4d3 wrote

Replying to chrisc82 (#1,792,854)

It doesn't understand anything, it's a chatbot that is good with language skills which are symbolic. Please consider it's literally just a GPU matrix that is number-crunching language parameters, not a learning, thinking machine that can move outside of the realm of known science that is required for a doctorate. Man is still doing the learning and curating it's knowledge base. Chatbots have been really good before chatGPT as well.. you just weren't exposed to them it sounds like

2

MultiverseOfSanity t1_j8dm647 wrote

I did not get the same in depth answer as the Bing chat and now I'm wondering if I'm sentient.

2

Spider1132 t1_j8dsirw wrote

Turing test is a joke for this one.

1

57duck t1_j8e43f8 wrote

Does this “pop out” of a large language model as a consequence of speculation about the state of mind of third parties being included in the training data?

2

monsieurpooh t1_j8e615z wrote

Both the formulation and the response for this test is amazing. I'm going to be using it now to test other language models

2

sunplaysbass t1_j8f8wor wrote

JFC now Bing is going to tell me I need to be more expressive and enthusiastic too?

1

bigcitydreaming t1_j8fo1ig wrote

Replying to SilentLennie (#1,795,530)

Yeah, perhaps, but eventually you'll be at cusp of that massive progression (in relative terms) where it isn't overstated or overestimated.

It might still be years away to reach the level of impact which OP described, but eventually it'll only be months away.

2

ArgentStonecutter t1_j8fyg26 wrote

Replying to gahblahblah (#1,802,327)

You came in with this ambiguous scenario and crowing about how it showed a text generator had a theory of mind, because just by chance the text generator generated the text you wanted, and you want us to go "oh, wow, a theory of mind". But all its doing is generating statistically interesting text.

And when someone pointed that out, you go into this passive aggressive "oh let's see you do better" to someone who doesn't believe it's possible. That's not a valid or even useful argument. It's a stupid debate club trick to score points.

And now you're pulling more stupid passive aggressive tricks when you're called on it.

1

gahblahblah t1_j8gcb5d wrote

Replying to ArgentStonecutter (#1,802,531)

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs and assumptions.

>And when someone pointed that out, you go into this passive aggressive "oh let's see you do better" to someone who doesn't believe it's possible. That's not a valid or even useful argument. It's a stupid debate club trick to score points.

Wrong, in many ways. The criticism they had was of the particulars of the test - so it would appear as if there was a form of the test that they could judge as satisfactory. It was only after I challenged them to produce such a form, that they explained, actually, no form would satisfy them. So, you have gotten it backwards - my challenge yielded the useful result of demonstrating that initial criticism was disingenuous, as in reality, all that they criticised could have been different, and they still wouldn't change their view.

I wasn't being passive aggressive in asking someone to validate their position with more information - rather, I was soliciting information for which to determine if their critique was valid.

Asking for information is not 'a trick to score points', rather, it is the process of determining what is real.

>You came in with this ambiguous scenario and crowing about how it showed a text generator had a theory of mind, because just by chance the text generator generated the text you wanted, and you want us to go "oh, wow, a theory of mind". But all its doing is generating statistically interesting text.

This is a fascinating take that you have. You label this scenario as ambiguous- is there a way to make it not ambiguous to you?

To clarify, if I were to ask the bot a very very hard, complex, nuanced subtle question, and it answered in a long form coherent on-point correct reply - would you judge this as still ambiguous and only a demonstration of 'statistically interesting text', or is there a point where your view changes?

1

sickvisionz t1_j8gtyoj wrote

Replying to TinyBurbz (#1,795,266)

> However, without more information or context, it's difficult to determine Arnold's exact feelings towards the dog with certainty. It's possible that he might be surprised or even overwhelmed by the news, but his brief response of "Great" suggests that he is, at the very least, accepting of the new addition to his life.

That was my interpretation and I got response spammed that I don't understand humans.

1

Representative_Pop_8 t1_j8iqgft wrote

Replying to amplex1337 (#1,797,082)

what is your definiton of understand?

what is inside internally matters little if the results are that it understands something. The example shown by OP and many more, including my own experience clearly shows understanding of many concepts and some capacity to quickly learn from interaction with users ( without needing to reconfigure nor retain the model) though still not as smart as an educated humans.

It seems to be a common misconception , even by people that work in machine learning to say these things don't know , or can't learn or are not intelligent, based on the fact they know the low level internals and just see the perceptions or matrix or whatever and say this is just variables with data, they are seeing the tree and missing the forest. Not knowing how that matrix or whatever manages to understand things or learn new things with the right input doent mean it doesn't happen. In fact the actual experts , the makers of these AI bots know these things understand and can learn, but also don't know why , but are actively researching.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axjnm/scientists-made-discovery-about-how-ai-actually-works?utm_source=reddit.com

>Man is still doing the learning and curating it's knowledge base.

didn't you learn to talk by seeing your parents? didn't you go years to school? needing someone to teach you doesn't mean you don't know what you learned.

1

Caring_Cactus t1_j8izqb9 wrote

Replying to amplex1337 (#1,797,082)

Does it have to be in the same way humans see things? It's not conscious, but it can understand and recognize patterns, is that not what humans early on do? Now imagine what will happen when it does become conscious, it will have a much deeper understanding to conceptualize new interplays we probably can't imagine right now.

1

RoyalSpecialist1777 t1_j8kwg8b wrote

Replying to Representative_Pop_8 (#1,808,649)

I am curious how a deep learning system, while learning to perform prediction and classifation is any different than our own brains. It seems increasingly evident that while the goals used to guide training are different but the mechanisms of learning effectively the same. Of course there are differences in mechanism and complexity but what this last year is teaching us is the artificial deep learning systems work to do the same type of modeling we undergo when learning. Messy at first but definitely capable of learning and sophistication down the line. Linguists argue for genetically wired language rules but really this isn't needed - the system will figure out what it needs and create them like the good blank slates they are.

There are a lot of ChatGPT misconceptions going around. For example that it just blindly memorizes patterns. It is a deep learning system (very deep) that, if it helps with classification and prediction, ends up creating rather complex and functional models of how things work. These actually perform computation of a pretty sophisticated nature (any function can be modeled by a neural network). And this does include creativity and reasoning as the inputs flow into and through the system. Creativity as a phenomena might need a fitness function which scores creative solutions higher (be nice to model that one so the AI can score itself) and of course will take awhile to get down but not outside the capabilities of these types of systems.

Anyways, just wanted to chime in as this has been on my mind. I am still on the fence whether I believe any of this. The last point is that people criticize ChatGPT for giving incorrect answers but it is human nature to 'approximate' knowledge and thus incredibly messy. Partially why it takes so long.

2

amplex1337 t1_j8qp89h wrote

Replying to OutOfBananaException (#1,805,876)

chatGPT doesn't understand a thing it tells you right now, nor can it 'code in multiple languages'. It can however fake it very well. Give me an example of truly novel code that chatGPT wrote that is not some preprogrammed examples strung together in what seems like a unique way to you. I've tried quite a bit recently to test its limits with simple yet novel requests, and it stubs its toe or falls over nearly every time, basically returning a template, failing to answer the question correctly, or just dying in the middle of the response when given a detailed prompt, etc. It doesn't know 'how to code' other than basically slapping together code snippets from its training data, just like I can do by searching in google and copy pasting code from the top results from SO etc. There are still wrong answers at times.. proving it really doesn't know anything. Just because there appears to be some randomness to the answers it gives doesn't necessarily make it 'intelligence'. The LLM is not AGI that would be needed to actually learn and know how to program. It uses supervised learning (human curated), then reward based learning (also curated), then a self-generated PPO model (still based on human-trained reward models) to help reinforce the reward system with succinct policies. Its a very fancy chatbot, and fools a lot of people very well! We will have AGI eventually, its true, but this is not it yet and while it may seem pedantic because this is so exciting to many, there IS a difference.

2

Typo_of_the_Dad t1_j8ytwix wrote

Well, it's very american considering it sees "great" as bland and unenthusiastic.

1