SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Although ChatGPT can write about anything, it is also easily confused:
As 2022 came to a close, OpenAI released an automatic writing system called ChatGPT that rapidly became an Internet sensation; less than two weeks after its release, more than a million people had signed up to try it online. As every reader surely knows by now, you type in text, and immediately get back paragraphs and paragraphs of uncannily human-like writing, stories, poems and more. Some of what it writes is so good that some people are using it to pick up dates on Tinder ("Do you mind if I take a seat? Because watching you do those hip thrusts is making my legs feel a little weak.") Other, to the considerable consternation of educators everywhere, are using it write term papers. Still others are using it to try to reinvent search engines . I have never seen anything like this much buzz.
Still, we should not be entirely impressed.
As I told NYT columnist Farhad Manjoo, ChatGPT, like earlier, related systems is "still not reliable, still doesn't understand the physical world, still doesn't understand the psychological world and still hallucinates."
[...] What Silicon Valley, and indeed the world, is waiting for, is GPT-4.
I guarantee that minds will be blown. I know several people who have actually tried GPT-4, and all were impressed. It truly is coming soon (Spring of 2023, according to some rumors). When it comes out, it will totally eclipse ChatGPT; it's safe bet that even more people will be talking about it.
[...] In technical terms, GPT-4 will have more parameters inside of it, requiring more processors and memory to be tied together, and be trained on more data. GPT-1 was trained on 4.6 gigabytes of data, GPT-2 was trained on 46 gigabytes, GPT-3 was trained on 750. GPT-4 will be trained on considerably more, a significant fraction of the internet as a whole. As OpenAI has learned, bigger in many ways means better, with outputs more and more humanlike with each iteration. GPT-4 is going to be a monster.
The article goes on to list 7 "dark predictions" that, if realized, may signal it's time to move on.
Previously:
- ChatGPT Arrives in the Academic World
- Stack Overflow Temporarily Bans Answers From OpenAI's ChatGPT Chatbot
- OpenAI's New ChatGPT Bot: 10 "Dangerous" Things it's Capable of
(Score: 4, Interesting) by istartedi on Thursday January 12 2023, @12:48AM (5 children)
I'm given to understand that microprocessors got a *huge* shot in the arm when they went to computer aided design. Prior to that, chips were laid out on paper like big blue prints. Once they got that into a computer, positive feedback loops ensued that got us to the multi-million transistor designs we have now. That would be impossible with hand-drawn masks!
I'm wondering what the crossover point is here--where you can ask GPT why it sucks, what it needs to suck less, and get an answer that doesn't suck.
If that happens it could be an exciting and scary time of us asking increasingly better versions how to do things, and being amazed at the answers. Most of us can't comprehend quantum physics. At some point, this technology could produce something like the holy grail of theoretical physics; but even the brightest human might not be able to understand the theory. The whole premise of that endeavor, along with many others, has been that humans should be able to read the paper and understand it. IMHO, there's nothing that says the world has to be elegant and comprehensible, except our human bias.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2023, @06:42AM (4 children)
And the fact that the assumption has worked so far. There really has been elegant and comprehensible bases to the fundamental dynamics of the world. We're just now at the point where we're trying to unite these disparate descriptions. Should be yet another elegant and comprehensible description, right? And even if it isn't, we can always improve the human intellect till that does happen.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2023, @09:59AM (3 children)
FWIW I've noticed one elegant incomprehensible so far. Scientists are unable to explain the very first observation I suspect[1] all of them have made - consciousness.
So far there's no proof that a certain algorithm or mathematical operation will necessarily generate the phenomena of consciousness.
[1] I can't prove that any of them or anyone else actually experiences consciousness. I only know for certain that I do. The all of you could just be bio-machines that have self-aware behaviors but don't actually experience any consciousness.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 12 2023, @02:54PM
I.E. Prove that we're not all genetically engineered guinea pigs that will be wiped off the face of planet once our makers come back in their space ships.
Generally, it's easy to prove something is true, if it is. Or at least be reasonably sure that X thing is true, because it's well documented. Proving that something is false, is much, much harder.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2023, @02:58PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2023, @07:21PM
What does it even mean for something to be conscious? It seems the Turing test is just to be able to mimic a human. Sounds pretty dumb, if you ask me, to mimic a human.