|
|
|
|
|
|
by xwdv
1158 days ago
|
|
|
It never had an “understanding”, you just pushed an LLM conversation into a state where it would give higher quality answers. Like I said, most of these applications of GPT currently just seem like a toy. Until GPT can be put to work to tackle problems that only an AI could do, we won’t really see anything from GPT that couldn’t have been done before by simply talking to a human. |
|
|
Having a "human-like" entity I can chat with about interesting little problems in math, economics, governance and ethics is really helpful.
I use the word "understanding", because it's so clear when it does, and when it doesn't.
I am not implying it is conscious or aware. Simply that it has represented something in a robust enough way to be able to chat about it from different perspectives consistently.
Another helpful thing is getting pushback from the model when it thinks I am wrong. I have to explain myself better, or occasionally discover I am the one making a mistake. Beautiful!
The limit is the limit of the chat length. There is a sense of accomplishment to explain a problem to another entity, until it understands, and then together establish some interesting results. The day I get to have an entity whose memory accumulates all the details of all the problems I am (we are?) working on will be a GREAT day.