[batman-farts]

No, sorry, I don't buy this assertion when it comes up. Everything I've seen, even from the most advanced image generators, has struck me as a logical follow-on from the "big data" trends of the 2010s. If you've ingested literally everything of a certain data type available on the internet, or even a significant fraction of it, it follows that you'd eventually be able to mix it all together and produce randomized outputs that seem novel.

It also elides the significant encoding of human feedback, a contribution that AI firms have typically been none-too-eager to highlight.

[chpatrick]

> If you've ingested literally everything of a certain data type available on the internet, or even a significant fraction of it, it follows that you'd eventually be able to mix it all together and produce randomized outputs that seem novel.

That's a ludicrous "it follows". Search engines have been collecting everything from the internet since the beginning but you can't just magically rearrange it and pass the Turing test. We're way past the point where you could say everything ChatGPT says is copy pasted from somewhere.

[pdgenoa]

So you disagree with and think you know better than the 14 people at Microsoft Research that had access to the unrestricted early GPT-4 model and wrote the white paper outlining the results of experiments with it that concluded the model showed "sparks of artificial general intelligence".

That's their informed, direct conclusion after hands on with the unrestricted model. I wonder what your conclusion is based on.

[insanitybit]

Could you link me this paper? It sounds very interesting.

[chpatrick]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712