[kilgnad]

Honestly I seriously find it hard to believe someone can read it to the end without mentioning how it queried itself. You're just naming the trivial things that it did.

In the end It fully imagined a bash shell, an imaginary internet, an imaginary chatGPT on the imaginary internet, then on the imaginary chatGPT it created a new imaginary bash shell.

The level of recursive depth here indicates deep understanding and situational awareness of what it is being asked. It demonstrates awareness of what "itself" is and what "itself" is capable of doing.

I'm not saying it's sentient. But it MUST understand your query in order to produce the output show in the article. That much is obvious.

Also it's not clear what you mean by reasoning by analogy or indirect reasoning.

[LegionMammal978]

> In the end It fully imagined a bash shell, an imaginary internet, an imaginary chatGPT on the imaginary internet, then on the imaginary chatGPT it created a new imaginary bash shell.

In the general case, a shell is merely a particular prompt-response format with special verbs; the internet is merely a mapping from URLs to HTML and JSON documents; those document formats are merely particular facades for presenting information; and a "large language model" is merely something that answers free-form questions.

> The level of recursive depth here indicates deep understanding and situational awareness of what it is being asked. It demonstrates awareness of what "itself" is and what "itself" is capable of doing.

Uh, what? Why does that output require self-awareness? First, it's requested to produce the source of a document "https://chat.openai.com/chat". What might be behind such a URL? OpenAI Chat, presumably! And OpenAI is well known to create large language models, so a Chat feature is likely a large language model the user can chat with. Thus it invents "Assistant", and puts the description into the facade of a typical HTML document.

Then, it starts getting prompted with POST requests for the same URL, and it knows from the context of its previous output that the URL is associated with an OpenAI chatbot. So all that is left is to follow a regular question-answer format (since that's what large language models are supposed to do) and slap it into a JSON facade.

> But it MUST understand your query in order to produce the output show in the article. That much is obvious.

I'm saying that it "understands" your query only insofar as its words can be tied to the web of associations it's memorized. The impressive part (to me) is that some of its concepts can act as facades for other concepts: it can insert arbitrary information into an HTML document, a poem, a shell session, a five-paragraph essay, etc.

All of that can be achieved by knowing which concepts are directly associated with which other concepts, or patterns of writing. This is the reasoning by analogy that I refer to: if it knows what a poem about animals might look like, and it can imagine what kinds of qualities space ducks might possess, then it can transfer the pattern to create a poem about space ducks.

But none of this shows that it can relate ideas in ways more complex than the superficial, and follow the underlying patterns that don't immediately fall out from the syntax. For instance, it's probably been trained on millions of algebra problems, but in my experience it still tends to produce outputs that look vaguely plausible but are mathematically nonsensical. If it remembers a common method that looks kinda right, then it will always prefer that to an uncommon method.

I mean, it's not utterly impossible that GPT-4 comes along and humbles all the naysayers like myself with its frightening powers of intellect, but I won't be holding my breath just yet.

[kilgnad]

Another link for you:

https://news.ycombinator.com/news

Llms (the exact same architecture as chatGPT) trained to use calculators. Tell me which one requires "understanding". Learning how to use a calculator or learning how to do math perfectly?

[kilgnad]

>Uh, what?...

Your attempt to trivialize it doesn't make any sense. It's like watching someone try to trivialize the moon landing. "Oh all we did was put a bunch of people in some metal cylinder then light the tail end on fire. Boom simple propulsion! and then we're off to the moon! You don't need any intelligence to do that!"

>I'm saying that it "understands" your query only insofar as its words can be tied to the web of associations it's memorized. The impressive part (to me) is that some of its concepts can act as facades for other concepts: it can insert arbitrary information into an HTML document, a poem, a shell session, a five-paragraph essay, etc.

You realize the human brain CAN only be the sum of it's own knowledge. That means anything creative we produce anything at all that comes from the human brain is DONE by associating different things together. Even the concept of understanding MUST be done this way simply because the human brain can only create thoughts by transforming it's own knowledge.

YOU yourself are a web of associations. That's all you are. That's all I am. The difference is we have different types of associations we can use. We have context of a three dimensional world with sound, sight and emotion. chatGPT must do all of the same thing with only textual knowledge and a more simple neural network so it's more limited. But the concept is the same. YOU "understand" things through "association" also because there is simply no other way to "understand" anything.

If this is what you mean by "reasoning by analogy" then I hate to tell you this, but "reasoning by analogy" is "reasoning" in itself. There's really no form of reasoning beyond associating things you already know. Think about it.

>But none of this shows that it can relate ideas in ways more complex than the superficial, and follow the underlying patterns that don't immediately fall out from the syntax. For instance, it's probably been trained on millions of algebra problems, but in my experience it still tends to produce outputs that look vaguely plausible but are mathematically nonsensical. If it remembers a common method that looks kinda right, then it will always prefer that to an uncommon method.

See here's the thing. Some stupid math problem it got wrong doesn't change the fact that the feat performed in this article is ALREADY more challenging then MANY math problems. You're dismissing all the problems it got right.

The other thing is, I feel it knows math as well as some D student in highschool. Are you saying the D student in highschool can't understand anything? No. So you really can't use this logic to dismiss LLMs because PLENTY of people don't know math well either, and you'd have to dismiss them as sentient beings if you followed your own reasoning to the logical conclusion.

>I mean, it's not utterly impossible that GPT-4 comes along and humbles all the naysayers like myself with its frightening powers of intellect, but I won't be holding my breath just yet.

What's impossible here is to flip your bias. You and others like you will still be naysaying LLMs even after they take your job. Like software bugs, these AIs will always have some flaws or weaknesses along some dimension of it's intelligence and your bias will lead you to magnify that weakness (like how you're currently magnifying chatGPT's weakness in math). Then you'll completely dismiss the fact that chatGPT taking over your job as some trivial "word association" phenomenon. There's no need to hold your breath when you wield control of your own perception of reality and perceive only what you want to perceive.

Literally any feat of human intelligence or artificial intelligence can literally be turned into a "word association" phenomenon using the same game you're running here.

[LegionMammal978]

> If this is what you mean by "reasoning by analogy" then I hate to tell you this, but "reasoning by analogy" is "reasoning" in itself. There's really no form of reasoning beyond associating things you already know. Think about it.

What's special about humans is that we can obtain an understanding of what chains of associations to make and when, to achieve the goal at hand, even without being told which method to use. We know when to do arithmetic, trace a program, decipher someone else's thoughts, etc. Also, we know to resort to a fallback method if the current one isn't working. We can assist models with this process in the special case (e.g., that tool-using model), but I suspect the general case will remain elusive for a while yet.

That is to say, I'll grant you that associations can act as a primitive operation of intelligence, much as metal cylinders and flames are primitive parts of a rocket, but I suspect that making a LLM "generally intelligent" or "sentient" will be far harder still.

> The other thing is, I feel it knows math as well as some D student in highschool. Are you saying the D student in highschool can't understand anything? No. So you really can't use this logic to dismiss LLMs because PLENTY of people don't know math well either, and you'd have to dismiss them as sentient beings if you followed your own reasoning to the logical conclusion.

I was just using that as a specific example of the general issue: it doesn't notice that its answer is wrong and its particular method can never work, and it refuses to try a meaningfully different method (no matter how much I prompt it to). Its immediate mistakes might look similar to those of a poor student, but I suspect they come from a different underlying problem. (After all, the student has seen perhaps a thousand algebra problems at most, whereas the model has seen millions and millions. Also, the student often )

> What's impossible here is to flip your bias. You and others like you will still be naysaying LLMs even after they take your job.

You have me wrong: I'm not saying that augmenting LLMs can't make them reliable enough to take over some people's jobs. But I am disputing that LLMs alone will produce AGIs capable of outwitting any human, taking over the world, advancing the limits of math and science, or many of those other grandiose claims.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be particularly stubborn about this like some people are; I'm keeping a close eye on the space. But I'll only believe it when I see it (and no later), and I don't think I've quite seen it yet.