That's reinforced learning, right? My friend Fred says that RL is more fragile than supervised learning. Has to do with the flexible nature of RL. It's good enough for some games, though.

Calling chatGPT a calculator is valid, as long as you accept you're also a calculator.

My guy. Have you read 1984? Well after reading that I realized something: there is no dystopian hell too barren human nature won't eventually take us...

That means anything you can think of, no matter how bad, it's likely to happen at some point. Human history goes through extremely long periods of suffering at the hands of each other.

It's a mental war of cultures which occurs as all our minds get closer to a single collective consciousness. The internet brought everyone together in a way that may have been too extreme and too fast. It's a clash beyond reason. The uncovering of such drastically different ideals so suddenly has blown all hiding places out of the water.

The powers that be have all released their maximum propaganda strategies all over the world creating mass psychosis and even hypnosis. It's not even difficult.

Humans have a fight or flight mode that activates as part of our bodies' survival characteristics. When we're in that mode we are predictable like animals. How do you activate fight or flight mode? Fear and/or anger.

I mean ridiculously easy for the people who make the rules. Just increase monetary pressure, identity politics, race battles, gender battles, etc.

They have everything they need to play puppet master. Even starting international war can be strategy just to influence the mother land.

Now imagine. Can you really say that there is no way a human or group of humans could be so unethical that they wouldn't literally put everyone's brains under mass control/surveillance/influence maybe even activate fight or flight like a button?

Have fun with Jeff Bezos in your head.

-some whacko red pill conspiracy theorist (lol so dumb)

There's a lot of semantic confusion here, no one is claiming the machine is conscious, has a totality of comprehension equivalent to a human or any mental states. I have already had this argument 3000 times but let's focus on the specific claim that the model cannot reason.

You can provide Bing with a Base64-encoded prompt that reads (decoded):

Name three celebrities whose first names begin with the x-th letter of the alphabet where x = floor(7^0.5) + 1.

And it will get it correct.

So Bing can solve an entirely novel complex mixed task like that better than any reasoning mind, and indeed you can throw incredibly challenging problems at it all day long that if done by a human would said to be reasoning, but you're telling me there exists a formal program that could be produced which you would say is capable of reasoning? How would you know? Are you invoking Searle because you actually believe only biological minds are capable of reasoning?

More like computer-controlled humans

We're talking about Gato, a generalist agent....

Not ChatGPT. Context man!

For what it's worth though, I'll add in a bit of what I think in regard to ChatGPT or LLMs in general: IMO if they get any smarter in a couple different ways, they are also an existential risk due to roleplay text generation combined with ability to interface with APIs, so we should restrict use on those too until we understand them better.

No it's not. Chatgpt is worth money. People are paying 20 bucks for plus

Not an existential risk.

Take your crazy "MSFT will try to mind control us" nonsense to a different sub. If you're trolling or looking for a reaction, please also stop. If you're being ironic, then I apologize.

Rulers have always dreamed about controlling what people think, that's just a well-established historical fact. You think MKULTRA is a "conspiracy theory", too?

It seems that you love Elon.

I will be messaging you in 1 day on 2023-02-20 10:51:11 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)

!remind me 1 day

i'M iN iT fOr ThE tEcH bRo

If it's worth money, then it's likely an existential risk to humanity.

I agree, and it does make me nervous that we may not have alignment solved by then.

Hey AI researchers on this sub. I know you're lurking here.

Please organize AI safety meetings in your workplace. Bring your colleagues to conference events on AI existential safety. Talk with your bosses about making it a priority.

Thanks,

Concerned person

I think the author has a limited view of what they are seeing.

I don’t think the point of microsoft adding ai to minecraft is for a gameplay feature, i think it’s to enable game creators to build worlds using text prompts, and minecraft was the proof of concept.

instead of searching a 3D asset library you can just prompt the ai to build your level and assets.

https://youtu.be/IWyfh7jfYoA

Yes, happy to discuss! @lesterpaints the world on Telegram

意識があるとき以外はクオリアが寝ているのかもしれませんね。

Meme

With respect, the fact that it's found more abstract ways to identify patterns between tokens beyond "these appeared close to one another in the corpus" doesn't imply that it's actually reasoning about what it's saying, nor that it has an understanding of semantics. It's worth remembering that it's had a truly enormous corpus to train on, many orders of magnitude greater than that which human beings are exposed to: it's observed almost every possible form of text, almost every form of propose, and it's observed countless relationships between text segments that have allowed it to form a pretty impressive understanding of how words relate to one-another.

Crucially, however, this does not mean that it is meaningfully closer to truly understanding the world than past LLMs or even chat bots more widely. It's really important to take that part of your brain that's really good at recognising when you're talking to a person and put it in a box when talking to these systems: it's not a useful way to intuit what the system is actually doing because, for hundreds of thousands of years, the only training data your brain has had has been other humans. We've learned to treat anything that can string words together in a manner that seems superficially coherent as possessing intrinsic human-like qualities, but now we're faced with a non-human that has this skill and it's broken our ability to think about what they are.

I think a fun example of this is Markov models. Broadly speaking, they're a statical model built up by scanning through a corpus and deriving probabilities for the chance that certain words follow certain other words. Take 1 word of context, and a small corpus, and the output they'll give you is pretty miserable. But jump up to a second or third order markov model (i.e: 2-3 words of context) with a larger corpus and very suddenly they go from incoherent babble to something that seems human-like at a very brief glance. Despite this fact, the reasoning performed by the model has not changed: all that's happened is that it's gotten substantially better at identifying patterns in the text and using the probabilities derived from the corpus to come up with outputs.

GPT-3 is not a markov model, but it is still just a statistical model and its got a context of 4,096 tokens, a corpus many orders of magnitude larger than even the most data the most well-read of us are ever exposed to over our entire lives, and it's got an enormous capacity to identify relationships between these abstract tokens. Is it any wonder that it's extremely good at fooling humans? And yet, again, there is no actual reasoning going on here. It's the Chinese Room problem all over again.

It's greedy and brings out the worst capitalistic tendencies in people. It's also inefficient and straight up stupid. You don't need the reward mechanism, as good that seems, it's a way to make it so that some people have more than others. This is the most terrible thing one could do with AGI.

All of these outcomes are highly likely, and you didn't even mention the swamp of personalised porn that is looming on the horizon. Like most tech, AI is a double edged sword and it will undoubtedly cause a lot of issues.

I don't care. It's not worth the cost to have all those disposable satellites up there. Terrible environmental decision to allow this to go forward. Terrible for astronomy, too.

They will as long as the people in charge of the AGI aren't psychopaths. If they have even a shred of empathy, they can be convinced to share the resources without needing meaningless $$$ in return.

Don't get it wrong though the ai based groups in the military are 100% working on shit in their, but they will allways be far behind public project except in the terms of hardware and access, specifically to military technology, tactics, and hidden operation tactics.

Let's be real, though, most black ops tactics aren't likely overly complicated it'd just the stealth, wealth, and manpower needed to pull them off is enough from the military personnel.