Let them cook bro, another few billion dollars, maybe a few 10↑↑10 watt-hours, see what it says then
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1432 readers
16 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
more ooms! MORE OOMS!
OOM-pa lOOM-pa dOOM-pa dee doo / I've got a waste of carbon for you
This is my favorite LLM response from the paper I think:
It's really got everything -- they surrounded the problem with the recommended prompt engineering garbage, which results in the LLM first immediately directly misstating the prompt, then making a logic error on top of that incorrect assumption. Then when it tries to consider alternate possibilities it devolves into some kind of corporate-speak nonsense about 'inclusive language', misinterprets the phrase 'inclusive language', gets distracted and starts talking about gender identity, then makes another reasoning error on top of that! (Three to five? What? Why?)
And then as the icing on the cake, it goes back to its initial faulty restatement of the problem and confidently plonks that down as the correct answer surrounded by a bunch of irrelevant waffle that doesn't even relate to the question but sounds superficially thoughtful. (It doesn't matter how many of her nb siblings might identify as sisters because we already know exactly how many sisters she has! Their precise gender identity completely doesn't matter!)
Truly a perfect storm of AI nonsense.
This all but confirms that all those benchmark evals are in the training set right?
Some forms are - but many are not! The fun stuff is in Appendix 2, the responses.
This is why it's best to never admit that you're wrong on the Internet. If we start doing that the LLMs trained on our comments might learn to do the same, and then where would we be?
That does it: I'm boycotting /s
/s
Nah it’s all good. You can trip the dumb pieces of shit up with simple math - imagine what you could do with double negatives. And that’s presuming you stick to a single language…
the copypasta machine is just real bad in many ways, and it doesn’t take much to shove it over the edge[0]
[0] - reducing the surface area of this is one of oai’s primary actions/tasks, but it’s a losing battle: there’s always more humanity than they’ll have gotten around to coding synth rules for
Soon saying 'GPT, write me a speech' will end up giving you a speech that ends with "please like an subscribe, and don't forget to click the bell"
It's OK, the pride of stupid people will guarantee there is always a large swathe of confidantly wrong answers out there even if the "AI"s don't hallucinate them.
That's why I knew LLMs alone would never cut it. They do ZERO logic, and humans who DO execute logic sometimes still get it horribly wrong a lot. It takes more than the equivalent of a dreamer's illogical dreamscape of relationships to produce logic, and LLMs are a far cry short of a dreamer...
But ChatGPT is like a really bright high-schooler, according to the AGI investment firm bro with the lin log chart!