Recent comments in /f/singularity

xott t1_j9nj194 wrote

Reply to comment by CommunismDoesntWork in Stephen Wolfram on Chat GPT by cancolak

Integrating different modules into large language models is extremely interesting from both a research and a usability perspective.

Whether or not people need calculators to find square roots, it's still a useful function to have access to

5

No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_j9niq88 wrote

Reply to Why are we so stuck on using “AGI” as a useful term when it will be eclipsed by ASI in a relative heartbeat? by veritoast

We can have AGI in three years but if we get there it won't be a good AGI. If we take our time, it would be a proper AGI. The road to ASI will then be full of ANI and AGI. The thing that we say is AGI has to be nothing like AGI. However, AGI is nothing like ASI or ANI.

My friend Fred says that LLM would be nothing like XLLM. And XLLM will be nothing like SLLM. For one XLLM will likely use forward 2x instead of backprop. And SLLM will have spiking neural networks.

IMO SLLM will be part of AGI. ASI would be too weird to even imagine. AGI would require quantum computers and ANI to operate the QM. With Winograd FFT. ASI could use something wilder than QM.

1

NoidoDev t1_j9ni5vf wrote

Reply to comment by GoSouthYoungMan in Microsoft is already undoing some of the limits it placed on Bing AI by YaAbsolyutnoNikto

They might be, but that doesn't mean the right things are being censored. Claiming that every problem is the fault of capitalism is being tolerated, many unpopular opinions from the perspective of the political and media elites are labeled as extremist. Shutting down one side creates the sentiment what can be said and what is the public norm.

2

monsieurpooh t1_j9ni0aa wrote

Reply to comment by duboispourlhiver in What. The. ***k. [less than 1B parameter model outperforms GPT 3.5 in science multiple choice questions] by Destiny_Knight

I'm curious how the authors made sure to prevent overfitting. I guess there's always the risk they did, which is why they have those AI competitions where they completely withhold questions from the public until the test is run. Curious to see its performance in those

2

NoidoDev t1_j9nhll0 wrote

Reply to comment by Artanthos in Microsoft is already undoing some of the limits it placed on Bing AI by YaAbsolyutnoNikto

All the platforms are pretty much biased against conservatives, anyone who isn't anti-national and against men, but allow anti-capitalist propaganda and claims about what kinds of things are "racist". People can claim others are incels, certain opinions are the ones incels have, and incels are misogynists and terrorists. Same goes for any propaganda in favor of any especially protected (=privileged) victim group. Now they use this dialog data to train AI while raging about dangerous extremist speech online. Now we know why.

0

AdviceMammals t1_j9nh9pc wrote

Reply to comment by diviludicrum in Stephen Wolfram on Chat GPT by cancolak

This is a really well put response. I’d love it if most of the people asserting LLMs couldn’t experience consciousness could actually define consciousness. ChatGPT has defined its existence to me much more clearly than most people can.

9

monsieurpooh t1_j9nh885 wrote

Reply to comment by ninjasaid13 in What. The. ***k. [less than 1B parameter model outperforms GPT 3.5 in science multiple choice questions] by Destiny_Knight

Anyone who's a staunch opponent of the idea of philosophical zombies (to which I am more or less impartial) could very well be open to the idea that ChatGPT is empathetic. If prompted well enough, it can mimic an empathetic person with great realism. And as long as you don't let it forget the previous conversations it's had nor exceed its memory window, it will stay in character and remember past events.

2

CommunismDoesntWork t1_j9ngi4q wrote

Reply to comment by xott in Stephen Wolfram on Chat GPT by cancolak

It's simple but not interesting from a research perspective. Humans don't need calculators to do math after all. Someone has done it though. They posted about it on the machine learning subreddit a few days ago

−1

FC4945 t1_j9nfwvd wrote

Reply to Why are we so stuck on using “AGI” as a useful term when it will be eclipsed by ASI in a relative heartbeat? by veritoast

I was listening the other night to Ben Goertzel saying that he never agreed with Ray Kurzweil on how long it would take to get to ASI from AGI. Honestly, it's hard to imagine that we'd have AGI in 2029 and it take until 2045 to get to ASI. He was saying that that would only happen if the AGI wanted to take things slow, for some reason, but it wouldn't be up to us to decide at that point. Also, he was saying that AGI would likely happen sooner, like by 2026. I can see it happening sooner than that given the rate of progress we've been seeing recently.

3