Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Taxoro t1_jby8hs8 wrote

People need to stop thinking chatgpt and any other ai's have actual intelligence or can give proper information or adivce.. they can't.

Chatgpt has no idea what it's taking about, it just spews out sentences that sound human like. You cannot trust any information or advice it gives you, hell you can convince it that 1+1=3

19

Jasrek t1_jbyagt1 wrote

> You cannot trust any information or advice it gives you, hell you can convince it that 1+1=3

So, if you give it incorrect information, it provides you with incorrect information?

I am shocked, shocked, to be told that a computerized system operates on the principle of "Garbage in, garbage out".

3

Taxoro t1_jbyg2jc wrote

Yes of course but you have no way of knowing if are getting trash or not unless if are critical of anything you get out.

For a child to get unchecked advice from an ai is ridiculous

5

Jasrek t1_jbygqy1 wrote

All advice is unchecked. Learning to be critical of advice is a wonderful life lesson for children to learn.

The fact that you're calling it an 'AI' instead of 'sophisticated chat program' is the real issue here, honestly.

3

Taxoro t1_jbyo6px wrote

Sure but in this case OP wanted to use chatgpt as an adult adviser not as a resource to teach critical thinking

2

RedditFuelsMyDepress t1_jbyyaot wrote

Almost everyone calls it AI. I know it's not really "intelligent", but I believe the term "narrow AI" is commonly used for these types of algorithms that only perform a single task.

1

ninjadude93 t1_jc01lnp wrote

Itll provide incorrect information even without prompting

1

Surur t1_jby9wy6 wrote

ChatGPT says with an attitude like yours, you will be "left behind an in increasingly AI-driven world" and suggests you should "seek to understand the potential of AI and how it can be used to solve complex problems in a variety of fields, including healthcare, finance, and transportation."

3

Taxoro t1_jbz6z5v wrote

I understand the limitations of the software unlike most people here, you cannot trust a chat ai to provide real advice or information

1

Taxoro t1_jbya53e wrote

Try play a game of chess vs chatgpt and by move 10 it will make an illegal move because it has no concept of what the moves actually do

−2

Surur t1_jbye85e wrote

> People need to stop thinking chatgpt and any other ai's have actual intelligence or can give proper information or adivce.. they can't.

And yet you would lose against a $20 chess computer, so when you said "any other AI" you clearly did not mean a $20 chess computer.

6

DEMOLISHER500 t1_jbyk8qv wrote

that's calculational ability

6

Surur t1_jbyki9g wrote

That's what they said before AlphaGo beat Go lol.

2

DEMOLISHER500 t1_jbyll19 wrote

huh? chess computers are more similar to calculators than actual AIs

3

Surur t1_jbypao6 wrote

AI is any intelligence which is not organic. The current implementation is neural networks, but there was a time people thought AIs would use simple algorithms. Even AlphaGo uses tree searches, so there is no real cut-off which makes one thing an AI and the other not.

Which is why OP's statement that ChatGPT is not real AI is so ridiculous.

1

nosmelc t1_jbyucmy wrote

ChatGPT is real AI, but it's not Artificial General Intelligence. We'd need AGI for something to be a real confidant.

5

Surur t1_jbyux03 wrote

An AGI can do any intellectual task a human can do. Do we really need an AI which can do brain surgery to have one good enough to be a confidant? Do you have the same demand for your therapist, that they can also design computer chips?

0

nosmelc t1_jbywy2y wrote

Doing brain surgery and designing computer chips might actually be easier for an AI than being a confidant. A confidant needs to understand the real world and human emotions, which are extremely difficult for AI systems.

2

Surur t1_jbyxqvr wrote

> A confidant needs to understand the real world and human emotions, which are extremely difficult for AI systems.

ChatGPT actually shows pretty good theory of mind. I think it just needs a lot more safety training via human feedback. There is a point where things are "good enough".

−1

nosmelc t1_jbz5ts2 wrote

>ChatGPT actually shows pretty good theory of mind.

Do you have a specific example of that I can try?

2

ninjadude93 t1_jc029qs wrote

If you want a system that can stand in as a therapist and handle all the complexities of interacting with humans generally then yes you would want AGI. You need a system that can self reflect and has actual understanding of what it is saying not just a fancy chat bot

2

Surur t1_jc03f3p wrote

That is obviously your opinion based on a misunderstanding of what chatGPT is, so I will leave it at that.

1

ninjadude93 t1_jc03yp7 wrote

A well educated opinion from someone who understands what chatgpt is actually doing and what it isnt

1

Surur t1_jc04691 wrote

That is certainly not what your opinion is.

1

ninjadude93 t1_jc05vdy wrote

You do understand how chatgpt works right? Its a statistical machine only. Its not reasoning about what the meaning of words it chooses

1

Surur t1_jc13oal wrote

Your understanding is so superficial I would be surprised if you passed grade 1.

If ChatGPT is just a "a statisical machine" please explain how you would replicate the result without a neural network.

Get educated and stop wasting my time.

1

ninjadude93 t1_jc1jucv wrote

So you dont understand what it is. Thanks for clearing that up. Chatgpt works by selecting the most likely sequence of words given the preceeding word. In case you're not sure what that means, it's using statistics not traditional symbolic logical reasoning.

At no point did I imply it would be easy or feasible to replicate without a NN and that has no relevance to my previous comment lol but you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how NNs actually work so I can't blame you for getting confused.

Maybe you need to do a little self reflection on your ignorance lol

1

Surur t1_jc1orae wrote

>Chatgpt works by selecting the most likely sequence of words given the preceeding word.

Thank you for confirming that you are one of those idiots. That is like saying a car works by rolling the wheels lol.

You are clearly ignorant. Get educated for all our sakes.

0

ninjadude93 t1_jc1qcx1 wrote

I was explaining it simply for you since you've yet to give any insight of worth. But go ahead reveal your ignorance how do you think it works?

0

Surur t1_jc1ue53 wrote

Let me enlighten you.

ChatGPT uses a large neural network with 96 layers, an unknown number of artificial neurons and 175 billion parameters. When you type in a prompt that prompt is broken into tokens, which are passed onto the first layer of the neural network. The first layer (of 96) then processes that token, using a selection of those billions of weights) and generates a vector, which is passed into the next one in turn. This is repeated until you get to the output layers, where you end up with an array of output token possibilities, which will be processed by a decoding algorithm once more to select the optimal combination of tokens, which are then converted back to text and outputted.

Importantly we do not know what happens in those 96 layers of artificial neural network - it's mostly a black box, and if you can explain exactly what happens, feel free to write your paper - I am sure a science prize awaits.

−1

ninjadude93 t1_jc1w26o wrote

Congrats you've regurgitated a slightly more technical description of what I said, statistics based word generation. An important piece you missed is the temperature parameter which injects a bit of randomness into the selection of each word from the distribution.

As to your second text block of course we know what happens you just explained it in your first text block. Input is transformed by node weights and passed along between layers getting sequentially transformed by the next weights. It's not magic guy its just mathematics. But according to you this means its fully aware AGI right? Lol jesus you are so far up your own ass

0

Surur t1_jc1xcxw wrote

> Input is transformed by node weights and passed along between layers getting sequentially transformed by the next weights.

Think, Forrest, think. Isn't that how the human nervous system works? Or are you one of the magic microtubule guys?

> But according to you this means its fully aware AGI right?

I never said that lol. What I am saying is that this is the most complex machine humans have ever made. You don't appear to appreciate this. You are like an idiot who thinks a car works by turning the ignition and then the wheels roll.

−1

ninjadude93 t1_jc1zkcj wrote

Sure, thats why its called a neural net because its modeled after human neurons dummy lol but humans don't rely solely on statistical data processing. We have specialized portions of the brain that do things other than simple statistical inference. Maybe pick up some books on the subject?

Ok and? Just because something is complex doesn't automatically imbue it with self awareness or intelligence. Also its not all that complex, the output from training a NN is just a mathematical model. Chatgpt happens to be a model with billions of parameters but its just a bunch of terms combined together. Humans didnt even need to intervene in the creation of the model in this case. Maybe thats a bit too much for you to wrap your brain around though

0

Surur t1_jc20j8z wrote

> We have specialized portions of the brain that do things other than simple statistical inference

So just because you cant physically see the layout of the neural network you don't think it has a specialist structure? Studies in simpler models have shown that LLMs build physical representations of their world model in their layers, but according to you that is just "a bunch of terms combined together"

> Also its not all that complex, the output from training a NN is just a mathematical model.

Again, if you think LLMs only do "simple statistical inference" then replicate the system without using NNs.

Else just admit your ignorance and move on.

0

ninjadude93 t1_jc23myl wrote

No you absolute idiot how are you this bad at parsing the point lol. Humans do things other than just statistical inference which is the only mode of operation of NNs. Humans are able to logically reason by deduction rather than inference. Your entire first paragraph has nothing to do with what I said try to stay on topic man.

NNs utility comes from the ability to generate a model in an automated fashion. Again, there's no magic here just math and computational power. If you were able to plot all the input data in a high dimensional space and draw a hyperplane through it would get the exact same model output you get through regular training, people just cant visualize more than 3 dimensions so we use NNs to do this instead.

You clearly lack the basic mathematical background to understand how ML works. I suggest starting with some statistics and calculus and going from there so you can intelligently contribute in the future

0

Surur t1_jc244ph wrote

> Humans are able to logically reason by deduction rather than inference.

This is mostly not true lol. For example, I detect a distinct lack of reasoning and logic on your part lol.

So clearly that is not the case, because if you were actually thinking you would see the resemblance and equivalence between how the human brain works and the NN in LLMs.

0

ninjadude93 t1_jc26dum wrote

Says the moron who thinks humans lack the ability to reason deductively lol

Maybe if I explain it more simply for you. A NN will never be able to logically reason by way of deduction. This is due to the very nature of its design which is simply a device that takes input data and generates an output mathematical equation. The only way to get a good model is by viewing lots and lots of data. This is statistical inference since you don't seem to know what that is. There's no inner monologue happening within the computer. No intelligence is required at all to simply take data input and run it through a model. NNs take a small important slice of what the human brain is doing but clearly don't capture the whole picture otherwise we'd already have AGI based on NNs and we dont.

0

Surur t1_jc2940h wrote

> A NN will never be able to logically reason by way of deduction.

See, what you don't appear to understand, being somewhat below average intelligence, is that deductive reasoning is not native to humans and has to be taught.

Using simple Chain of Thought prompting deductive reasoning is much improved in LLMs.

I hate to break it to you, little ninja, but you are not that much better than ChatGPT.

2

ninjadude93 t1_jc2a8j9 wrote

Interesting paper but you still miss the point. The LLM needed to be prompted pretty specifically in the correct direction. It's not reasoning on its own merits and its still generating text based on a statistical distribution of next likely characters rather than examining the problem and formulating an answer then producing the response. A slight difference above your ability to comprehend, but one day you'll get there champ.

Hate to break it to you lil guy but just reposting articles on futurology doesn't make you intelligent

1

Surur t1_jc2aoxo wrote

> The LLM needed to be prompted pretty specifically in the correct direction.

And children have to be taught. ChatGPT5 will have this natively built in.

> It's not reasoning on its own merits and its still generating text based on a statistical distribution of next likely characters rather than examining the problem and formulating an answer then producing the response.

Look here little man, do I have to demonstrate again you have no idea what is actually going on inside the black-box of the 96 layers of chatGPT? I guess if you are slow I might have to.

> rather than examining the problem and formulating an answer then producing the response

Again, you are obviously not examining the problem before you are formulating your response. Why don't you try it a bit and see where you get. Take that as a challenge.

−1

ninjadude93 t1_jc2awkk wrote

Aw you're getting all worked up lol just go back and read the previous responses a little slower again maybe at some point you'll pick up the point again

1

Surur t1_jc2cgvn wrote

Lol. Have you run out of things to say? Why don't you employ your logic and reasoning for once.

Lets see:

Humans, when presented with a prompt, produce a response using their neural network, based on training they have received.

LLMs, when presented with a prompt, produce a response using their neural network, based on training they have received.

We do not know in detail how the brain works, though we know how neurons work.

We do not know in detail how the LLMs works, though we know how the GPUs work.

Fact: In most cases it is difficult to differentiate between the output of an average human vs a LLM, and in many cases the output from humans are worse, which is why they find great utility in LLMs like ChatGPT.

LLMs, similar to children, still have deficits in symbolic computation, but developers are making progress in that area.

Conclusion: Little Ninja is no different to a pile of silicon.

BTW I tested ChatGPT's deductive skills:

> Children do not believe LLMs can reason. Little Ninja is a child. What conclusion can we draw? Please lay out your thoughts step by step.

ChatGPT:

> The premise states that "Children do not believe LLMs can reason."

> Little Ninja is a child.

> Therefore, based on the given information, we can conclude that Little Ninja may not believe that LLMs can reason.

Or how about an example not including little ninja.

Q: South Africa is at the southern tip of Africa. Chile is at the southern tip of South America. Both countries are far away from the equator. The further you get from the equator, the colder you are. What can you conclude about the climate of South Africa and Chile.

A: Based on the given information, we can conclude that both South Africa and Chile are located far away from the equator, and the statement "the further you get from the equator, the colder you are" suggests that these countries are likely to have colder climates compared to countries located closer to the equator. However, we cannot make any specific conclusions about the climates of South Africa and Chile beyond this generalization, as climate is influenced by a wide range of factors such as altitude, ocean currents, and prevailing winds, which can vary from region to region within a country. Therefore, further information about specific regions within South Africa and Chile would be needed to make more detailed conclusions about their climates.

Or:

Q: South Africa is at the southern tip of Africa. Brazil is in South America and closer to the equator. The further you get from the equator, the colder you are. Which country is warmer and which is colder.

A: Based on the given information and the known relationship between distance from the equator and temperature, we can conclude that Brazil is likely to be warmer than South Africa. This is because Brazil is located closer to the equator than South Africa, meaning that the angle of incidence of the sun's rays is more direct and the sunlight is more concentrated, resulting in more heat energy reaching the surface.

−1

ninjadude93 t1_jc022e8 wrote

Neural nets at their core are just best fit machines in multidimensional data space.

Everything called AI in the news including chatgpt is being conflated with AGI when they really mean machine learning. AGI is something likely not achieved within our lifetimes but really good ML systems seem intelligent and aware but at their core there is no "understanding" in the way you would expect AGI to have

2

Surur t1_jc03ijw wrote

You seem very confused about the nature of AI and reality.

1

ninjadude93 t1_jc03sqo wrote

Im a software engineer and I work on systems that integrate NNs my guy, Im pretty certain I understand how they work better than you do lol

2

Surur t1_jc0436e wrote

I seriously doubt it.

1

ninjadude93 t1_jc07vnx wrote

Lol sure man doubt away. Feel free to enlighten me then Im interested in exactly what you think your expertise is

2

just_a_ghost_2 t1_jbysxtp wrote

It wasn't designed to play chess. There are chess AIs for that. It was designed to hold a conversation and when you actually play chess by talking someone will probably fuck up so it's actually realistic.

5

peadith t1_jbyhbzh wrote

Lots people think this thing is still a command line joke greeter. Yer in fer a sprize.

3