zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence.

Shame on all of the people involved in this: the people in these companies, the journalists who shovel shit (hope they get replaced real soon), researchers who should know better, and dementia ridden legislators.

So utterly predictable and slimy. All of those who are so gravely concerned about "alignment" in this context, give yourselves a pat on the back for hyping up science fiction stories and enabling regulatory capture.

>>srslac+I7
Imagine being supposedly at the forefront of AI or engineering and being the last people (if ever) to concede simple concepts could materialize complex intelligence. Even the publicly released version of this thing is doing insane tasks, passes any meaningful version of a Turing test, reasons it's way into nearly every professional certification exam out there, and you're still insisting its not smart or worrying because what again? Your math ability or disdain for an individual?

>>ramraj+HD
your comment reads to me as totally disconnected to the OP, whose concern relates to using the appearance of intelligence as a scare tactic to build a regulatory moat.

>>jazzyj+2G
Actually OP is clearly, ironically, parroting the stochastic parrot idea that LLMs are incapable of anything other than basic token prediction and dismissing any of their other emergent abilities.

>>adamsm+8J
It can't generalize and adapt outside of its corpus, not in a way that's correct anyhow, and there's nothing "emergent." They are incapable of anything other than token prediction on its corpus and context. it just produces really good predictions. Funny how everyone keeps citing that Microsoft paper, when Microsoft is who is lobbying for this regulatory capture, and it's already been shown that such emergence on the tasks they chose when you scale up was a "mirage."

>>srslac+vz2
Yes, and neither could GPT-3, which is why we don't observe any differences between GPT-3 and GPT-4. Right?

Tell me: how does this claim _constrain my expectations_ about what this (or future) models can do? Is there a specific thing that you predicted in advance that GPT-4 would be unable to do, which ended up being a correct prediction? Is there a specific thing you want to predict in advance of the next generation, that it will be unable to do?