640
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 167 points 1 year ago

From Re-evaluating GPT-4’s bar exam performance (linked in the article):

First, although GPT-4’s UBE score nears the 90th percentile when examining approximate conversions from February administrations of the Illinois Bar Exam, these estimates are heavily skewed towards repeat test-takers who failed the July administration and score significantly lower than the general test-taking population.

Ohhh, that is sneaky!

[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 123 points 1 year ago

What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn't impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say

Moreover, although the UBE is a closed-book exam for humans, GPT-4’s huge training corpus largely distilled in its parameters means that it can effectively take the UBE “open-book”

And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn't even get a particularly good score!

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We've been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.

This is part of what makes ai so "scary" that it can basically know so much.

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 23 points 1 year ago

Dont anthropomorphise. There is quite the difference between a human and an advanced lookuptable.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I absolutely agree. However, if you think the LLMs are just fancy LUTs, then I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, we are also just fancy LUTs.

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 13 points 1 year ago

I don't think we are turing computable. So I don't think we are fancy LUTs.

[-] froztbyte@awful.systems 8 points 1 year ago

Heretic! Burn the witch!….wait what did they say about ….!

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

You ever meet an ai researcher with a background in biology? I’ve discussed this stuff with one. She disagrees with Turing about machines thinking including when ai is in the picture. They process information very differently from how biology does

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

This is a vague non answer, although I agree it's done very differently because our process is biological and ai is not.

But as I asked elsewhere, what's the effective difference?

[-] self@awful.systems 18 points 1 year ago

so to summarize, your only contributions to this thread are to go “well uh you just don’t know how LLMs work” while providing absolutely no detail of your own, and reporting our regulars for “Civility” when they rightly called you out for being a fucking idiot who’s way out of their depth

how fucking embarrassing for you

[-] froztbyte@awful.systems 13 points 1 year ago
[-] dgerard@awful.systems 10 points 1 year ago

the report queue can be comedy gold at times

[-] pyrex@awful.systems 6 points 1 year ago
[-] dgerard@awful.systems 5 points 1 year ago

we prefer to let the trail of "removed by mod" speak for itself

[-] mawhrin@awful.systems 8 points 1 year ago
[-] froztbyte@awful.systems 4 points 1 year ago

on the topic of which, this crossed my feed earlier

[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 13 points 1 year ago

You're asking how to tell the difference between a chatbot and a human being?

load more comments (32 replies)
load more comments (121 replies)
load more comments (123 replies)
this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
640 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

2067 readers
48 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS