Comments
izumi3682 OP t1_ix7zwbj wrote
>Was this headline generated by an AI?
Probably. Along with the article itself. Suppose the AI deliberately used that grammar to look less sophisticated than it is. That is AI being disingenuous...
What's a "tenterhook"? Is that a British thing? In the US we say, "I'm on "pins and needles" to see what GPT-4 can do."
iNstein t1_ix8bt3y wrote
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/on-tenterhooks-origin-meaning-phrase
Very common phrase, often said as tenderhooks because they sound similar and most people are not familiar with the word tenter.
[deleted] t1_ixf34cz wrote
[removed]
izumi3682 OP t1_ix7y5pa wrote
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
From the article.
>The possibility of GPT-4 being multimodal—such as accepting audio, text, image, and even video inputs—is anticipated. Moreover, there is an assumption that audio datasets from Open AI’s Whisper will be utilised to create the textual data needed to train GPT4.
And this.
>The major plot twist, however, is whether this entire article was written by GPT-4.
I have the perfect analogy for understanding the difference in performance between GPT-3 and GPT-4. I first read of it when understanding the difference between 4G and 5G.
The difference in performance capabilities between GPT-3 and GPT-4 is the difference between a very fast horse--and a slow jet. By the way, true 5G towers are starting to sprout up all over the US. They are big and disfiguring to neighborhoods.
And I'm pretty sure the next iteration/derivation of GPT style AI technology is more than a paper by this point. You might find the below interesting. Some background of the milieu and some thoughts I put down.
TL;DR: GPT-3 and 4, when it comes out, are but a small facet of what is coming into existence. The ARA, that is computing derived AI, robotics and automation are going to see things, in just the next 1-2 years alone, that are going to beyond belief today. To say nothing of what it will be like by the year 2025. Not only is this not hype, but I'm pretty sure I am greatly underestimating the impact on society of these advances. Further, China (PRC) doesn't openly discuss what they are up to.
ovirt001 t1_ix859qz wrote
> By the way, true 5G towers are starting to sprout up all over the US. They are big and disfiguring to neighborhoods.
"True" 5G towers have been deployed in dense areas for the last two years. C-Band is great and offers an improvement in the US specifically (most other countries had already allowed this band). mmWave isn't useful outside of niche cases. Neither of these are going to fix the coverage problem and only mmWave is fast enough to do all the high-bandwidth things touted for 5G. Of course it doesn't reach far enough to be particularly useful.
TemetN t1_ix8qpuh wrote
To date the only leak I believe is the one about model size, and that may very well have changed by now it's been so long (and since new scaling laws came out). I am admittedly anticipating it though (or more accurately, frustrated it isn't out yet and tamping down enthusiasm).
memberjan6 t1_ixaf8o3 wrote
It's too big for any single application. It's like when you need to tighten a doorknob with a screwdriver but you choose to call a massive SnapOn truck delivery just for that.Sure, that thing can probably do most jobs... But it's overkill for any one job too.
FuturologyBot t1_ix81dsw wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
From the article.
>The possibility of GPT-4 being multimodal—such as accepting audio, text, image, and even video inputs—is anticipated. Moreover, there is an assumption that audio datasets from Open AI’s Whisper will be utilised to create the textual data needed to train GPT4.
And this.
>The major plot twist, however, is whether this entire article was written by GPT-4.
I have the perfect analogy for understanding the difference in performance between GPT-3 and GPT-4. I first read of it when understanding the difference between 4G and 5G.
The difference in performance capabilities between GPT-3 and GPT-4 is the difference between a very fast horse--and a slow jet. By the way, true 5G towers are starting to sprout up all over the US. They are big and disfiguring to neighborhoods.
And I'm pretty sure the next iteration/derivation of GPT style AI technology is more than a paper by this point. You might find the below interesting. Some background of the milieu and some thoughts I put down.
TL;DR: GPT-3 and 4, when it comes out, are but a small facet of what is coming into existence. The ARA, that is computing derived AI, robotics and automation are going to see things, in just the next 1-2 years alone, that are going to beyond belief today. To say nothing of what it will be like by the year 2025. Not only is this not hype, but I'm pretty sure I am greatly underestimating the impact on society of these advances. Further, China (PRC) doesn't openly discuss what they are up to.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z0yh7f/gpt4_is_almost_here_and_it_looks_better_than/ix7y5pa/
MrBIMC t1_ixaogx0 wrote
Aren't leaks and memos from the past few month implied that GPT4 won't be multimodal, but rather last shot at what can be squeezed from text-only model?
Most of multimodal developments happened quite recently and probably won't be incorporated into GPT4. I do not know how long does it take to train a big GPT, but I assume it's a quite long process that takes many weeks if not month. And these things are not trained on bleeding edge AI architecture, but rather at something that was approved during project planning, which, in case of GPT4, happened many month ago.
[deleted] t1_ixf31kf wrote
[removed]
OliverSparrow t1_ixigsn0 wrote
Lots of excited generalisations, but what is it actually good for? The headline is gibberish, particularly the second sentence.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj8l8e wrote
It is possible the entire article was written by an AI of some sort. I speculated that the second sentence could have been deliberately produced by the AI to make it look less sophisticated than it actually is. Now that is an AI being disingenuous...
OliverSparrow t1_iydn7vs wrote
> Now that is an AI being disingenuous
Or an illiterate OP. Always choose the simplest explanation. W Occam, prop.
myusernamehere1 t1_ixk0fq1 wrote
The entire article is spectacularly poorly written
Thatingles t1_ix7y3z1 wrote
Was this headline generated by an AI? Because I almost had a stroke reading it.
I must admit, I am on tenterhooks to find out what GPT-4 can do. There have been rumours but rumours don't pay the bills.