|
|
|
|
|
by dkarras
838 days ago
|
|
need to show this to people claiming "it's just statistical inference, these models can't demonstrate any '''understanding'''" as if understanding is proven to be something else. these people assume every single bit of intelligence these models show is somehow in their training set which is patently false and very easy to test that it is false. first week ChatGPT was public more than a year ago, I tried the early model to make it play along with me inventing a new programming language with novel attributes in syntax. after some back and forth, it could translate my javascript samples to the new programming language paying attention to the new language's semantics, and could even simulate running simple pieces of code. Sure, it had some token errors here and there but it was working. It was understanding what I was telling it, and responding in kind. Over the months since, things only got better. So I'm not surprised with the results of this post, but still astonished the same. |
|
Interesting, please create the very easy test that proves that.