Quite the opposite; GPT-4 is excellent at a wide variety of languages, and as a context-aware translation tool (that can even take in images!) it has the potential to be far better at translating webpages and conversations than even the best currently existing translation software.

The last people to acknowledge that an AGI is actually AGI will be its creators. When Garry Kasparov played Deep Blue, he saw within it a deep sort of human intelligence; insight that said more than the chess AIs he was used to. Deep Blue's creators did not appreciate the chess genius it was capable of, because they were not brilliant chess players. Under a microscope, a human brain does not look very intelligent. So too will the creators of AGI deny its real intelligence, because they know its artificiality and foibles more than anyone.

Maybe, but it can't enumerate all of its knowledge for you, and it'd be better to reduce the actual network just to the reasoning component, and have "facts" stored in a database. That way its knowledge can be updated and we can make sure it doesn't learn the wrong thing.

Of course. Wikipedia cannot think. But what I mean is that if you just want to preserve information, you should preserve an archive and not an AI that can sometimes hallucinate information.

Of course, and I understand what you're talking about, I just mean that if you were interested in preserving human knowledge, an LLM would not be a great way to do it. It hallucinates information.

Or, you know, you can just download Wikipedia locally

It is impossible to say how a superintelligence would go about doing this because you would need to be superintelligent to work out the best method. I think the best way for it to do something like this would be to play along until we get complacent and give it enough time to build up the requisite military assets to perform a genocide of all humans.

Even if it were to perform the addition manually, addition takes place in the opposite order that GPT-4 thinks. It's unlikely to be very good at it.

Yes, but we are interested in its general purpose multiplication abilities. If it remembers the results, that's nice, but we can't expect it to do that for every single pair of numbers. And then, what about multiplication with 3 factors? We should start thinking of ways around this limitation.

Yes, it can probably be done. How? I don't know. Maybe some kind of neural loopback structure that runs layers until it's "done". No idea how this would really work.

I don't think that's impossible to add. You are right: chain of thought prompting circumvents this issue. I am specifically referring to "mental math" multiplication, which GPT-4 will often attempt.

GPT-4 always takes the same amount of time to output a token. However, multiplication has been proven to take more time than GPT-4 has available. Therefore, an LLM like GPT-4 cannot possibly "grow" the requisite structures required to actually calculate multiplication "instantly". There are probably quite a few more problems like this, which is why chain-of-thought prompting can be so powerful.

You are correct in that chain of thought prompting does work for this. That's because it gives it more time to run an algorithm to get the answer. I'm specifically talking about "instant" multiplication. Yes, GPT-4 can multiply, so long as it runs the algorithm for it manually. We then run into a small hitch because it will eventually hit its context window, but this can be circumvented. Reflexion and similar methods will also help to circumvent this.

As for SIMPLE specific tasks, I really don't think there's any GPT-4 can't do, not with an introspection step, at least.

None of the other posters have given the ACTUAL correct answer, which is that an LLM set up like GPT-4 can never actually be good at maths for the simple fact that GPT-4 runs in O(1) time when asked to perform mental math and the minimum theoretical time complexity for multiplication is O(n*log(n)). It is impossible for GPT-4 to be good at mathematics because it would breach the laws of physics.

At minimum, GPT-4 needs space to actually calculate its answer.

Wander. See the world. Meet as many people as possible. Enjoy full dive VR. Simulate all the crazy fantasies I've always dreamed of. Design the perfect video game. Relive my favorite games of the past, but for real. Enjoy an infinite virtual collection of all the stuff I've always wanted to own. Probably still browse Reddit a lot. Spend even more time arguing online.

Every video game you play has been played already by countless others. Every puzzle you solve was already solved. Machines can play Chess far better than any human. An aimbot that can be programmed in minutes can beat any human player at Counter-Strike. People continue to paint in spite of photographs. People weave in spite of looms.

Just because something can be done better by an AI does not mean it is not meaningful, still, for people.