EntireContext OP t1_iyo964o wrote on December 2, 2022 at 9:37 PM

Reply to comment by mjrossman in Have you updated your timelines following ChatGPT? by EntireContext

Current methods can solve maths though. A paper from November showed a net that solved ten International Mathemtical Olympiads problems. It's not like transformers can't do math. And ChatGPT wasn't trained to do math.

I didn't find its limits in terms of web development at least. It's a capable pair-programmer. Of course I guess it can't create innovative new hardcore algorithms that are state-of-the-art in complexity, but I didn't expect it to do that.

mjrossman t1_iyobcpe wrote on December 2, 2022 at 9:53 PM

maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if you don't expect state-of-the-output or, for lack of a better term, gain of function from the output of these current AI, how do you see our approach to the singularity being shortened based on the current consumer product. as far as the math olympiad reference, I'm assuming you're referencing Minerva or something at the same level. Again, it doesn't show completely error-free answers, it just shows a sequence of words & algorithms that are statistically adjacent enough to be convincing. it should be expected that if olympiad (or college level) question sets were available in the training data, then the bot can just recall the answers as complete chunks without "thinking".

EntireContext OP t1_iyoc3ib wrote on December 2, 2022 at 9:58 PM

GPTChat is state-of-the art in terms of what's available as a general conversational model. It's obviously not state-of-the-art at everything though, because it can't solve IMO problems in maths for example.

When you answer any question, what you do is give a sequence of words rhat are statistically adjacent enough to be convincing...

mjrossman t1_iyomjy8 wrote on December 2, 2022 at 11:17 PM

I would disagree with your point about how we answer questions, we optimize for comprehensively sound and valid answers, not for statistical adjacency. If someone says a whole bunch of techno-jargon or other word salad just to sound convincing, the wisdom of the crowds is already powerful enough to call that redundant. Likewise, the wisdom of the crowds can break GPTChat and there's already actively collected techniques to "jailbreak" the application.
My point is that a general conversational model is a gimmick at this point, and likewise GPT4 is already prescribed to have limitations like being text-centric and is not multimodal. It'll definitely being uncannily entertaining as a conversational homunculus, but a homunculus does not a singularity make.