[pottspotts]

I strongly disagree with Cal on most of his points here; Cal wrote an article in the New Yorker yesterday that effectively recapitulates the "Its just guessing the next token" argument. In his example, he explains that ChatGPT couldn't possibly understand how to remove a PB&J from a VCR, but asking GPT what to do discredits this analogy almost entirely. It is true that GPT doesn't have servos with feedback or other hardware to remove a sandwich itself, but it can certainly explain the process including how to clean the leftover residue and follows the details by suggestion you seek out a professional technician.

In the same article he admits ChatGPT is immensely complex and that "any number of humans" could not reproduce the rules by which it works; but then goes on to assure the reader that is naive and is not a threat to their jobs or safety.

This seems really disingenuous to me given he's a professor of computer science at a respected university. This kind of cynicism, that you might call naive, leads readers to put aside concerns about safety.

[ftxbro]

I agree, but I'm also resigned that these mainstream venues like New Yorker have a speed limit on how fast they can push the window.

For example they have moved in the last two months from "ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web" to "What Kind of Mind Does ChatGPT Have?" so that's some kind of progress. In two more months maybe they will put another take that's even better.

[gnahhust]

In my opinion, 'It's just guessing the next token' is true.