• huginn@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a probabilistic network that generates a response based on your input.

    No understanding required.

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a probabilistic network that generates a response based on your input.

      Same

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ask it to write code that replaces every occurrence of “me” in every file name in a folder with “us”, but excluding occurrences that are part of a word (like medium should not be usdium) and it will give you code that does exactly that.

      You can ask it to write code that does a heat simulation in a plate of aluminum given one side of heated and the other cooled. It will get there with some help. It works. That’s absolutely fucking crazy.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe, that really depends on if that task or a very similar task exists in sufficient amounts in its training set. Basically, you could get essentially the same result by searching online for code examples, the LLM might just make it a little faster (and probably introduce some errors as well).

        An LLM can only generate text that exists in its training data. That’s a pretty important limitation, which has all kinds of copyright-related issues associated with it (e.g. I can’t just copy a code example from GitHub in most cases).

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it does not depend on preexisting tasks, which is why I told you those 2 random examples. You can come up with new, never before seen questions if you want to. How to stack a cable, car battery, beer bottle, welding machine, tea pot to get the highest tower. Whatever. It is not always right, but also much more capable than you think.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is dependent on preexisting tasks, you’re just describing encoded latent space.

            It’s not explicit but it’s implicitly encoded.

            And you still can’t trust it because the encoding is intrinsically lossy.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ask it to finish writing the code to fetch a permission and it will make a request with a non-existent code. Ask it to implement an SNS API invitation and it’ll make up calls that don’t exist.

        Regurgitating code that someone else wrote for an aluminum simulation isn’t the flex you think it is: that’s just an untrustworthy search engine, not a thinking machine

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yet it can outperform humans on some tests involving logic. It will never be perfect, but that implies you can test its IQ

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. Not consistently and not across truly logical tests. They abjectly fail at abstract reasoning. They do well only in very specific cases.
        2. IQ is an objectively awful measure of human intelligence. Why would it be useful for artificial intelligence?
        3. For these tests that are so centered around specific facts: of course a model that has had the entirety of the Internet encoded into it has the answers. The shocking thing is that the model is so lossy that it doesn’t ace the test.
        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          IQ correlates with a good number of things though. It’a not perfect but it’s not meaningless either.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And global warming correlates with the decline in piracy rates. IQ is a garbage statistic invented by early 20th century eugenicists to prove that white people were the best.

            You can’t boil down the nuance of the most complex object in the known universe to a single number.

            • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not perfectly you can’t. But similarly to how people’s SAT scores predict their future success, IQ tests in aggregate do have predictive power.

      • exponential_wizard@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Test it’s IQ”. The fact that you think IQ is a useful test for intelligence tells me everything I need to know