[braindead_in]

I would like to propose a thought experiment concerning the realm of knowledge acquisition. Given that the scope of human imagination is inherently limited, it is inevitable that certain information will remain beyond our grasp; these are the so-called "known unknowns." In the event that an individual generates a piece of knowledge from this inaccessible domain, how might it manifest in our perception? It is likely that such knowledge would appear incomprehensible to us. Consequently, it is worth considering the possibility that the GPT model is not, in fact, experiencing hallucinations; rather, our human understanding is simply insufficient to fully grasp its output.

[meindnoch]

Yeah. Maybe when a baby says "gabadigoibygee", he is using an extremely efficient language that is too sophisticated for our adult brains to comprehend.

Yeah, maybe.

[andsoitis]

> In the event that an individual generates a piece of knowledge from this inaccessible domain, how might it manifest in our perception? It is likely that such knowledge would appear incomprehensible to us.

If what a person says cannot be comprehended by any other person, we usually have a special term for it.

[pharmakom]

But the hallucinated code doesn’t work.

[ChatGTP]

This is ridiculously “meta”, but I’ve said the same thing, at some point GPT-x will be useless as it will be beyond our comprehension, that’s if it’s actually “smart”.

My honest opinion is the hallucinations are just gibberish, but are they useful gibberish? Maybe we’re saying the same thing ?

[andsoitis]

> GPT-x will be useless as it will be beyond our comprehension, that’s if it’s actually “smart”.

Things don’t have to be comprehensible before they’re useful. But they have to work to be useful.

[goatlover]

Not hard to check whether code compiles or runs.