639
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 167 points 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months 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.

[-] mawhrin@awful.systems 18 points 7 months ago

LLMs know nothing. literally. they cannot.

[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 14 points 7 months ago

Yeah but neither did Socrates

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 17 points 7 months ago

but he at least was smug about it

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what "know" actually means.

But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I'm asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.

But this is why I asked the follow up question...what's the effective difference? Don't get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.

[-] froztbyte@awful.systems 20 points 7 months ago

nearly every word of your post demonstrates a comprehensively thorough lack of understanding of how this shit works

it also demonstrates why you're lost about the "effective difference"

I don't mean this aggressively, but you really don't have any concrete idea of wtf you're talking about, and it shows

[-] mawhrin@awful.systems 19 points 7 months ago

i guess it comes down to a philosophical question

no, it doesn't, and it's not a philosophical question (and neither is this a question of philosophy).

the software simply has no cognitive capabilities.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

I'm not sure I agree, but then it goes to my second question:

What's the effective difference?

[-] mawhrin@awful.systems 16 points 7 months ago

(…) perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, comprehension, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making (…)

[-] braxy29@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

don't know why you got downvoted, an LLM is essentially a chinese room, and whether such a room "knows" is still the question.

[-] mawhrin@awful.systems 17 points 7 months ago
[-] petrol_sniff_king 10 points 7 months ago

Thanks for that read.

[-] froztbyte@awful.systems 11 points 7 months ago

Good god it’s a hydra

[-] self@awful.systems 11 points 7 months ago

don’t know why you got banned

[-] techMayhem@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Someone in the chinese room would not know anything about their in- or output. Sure you memorized that a certain set of symbols means your output should contain another set of symbols, but what do you actually "know" about these symbols.

But you have no idea what it's about. Is it a greeting? A recipe for some pasta? Instructions to build a bomb? Could be anything.

[-] YouKnowWhoTheFuckIAM@awful.systems 18 points 7 months ago

Yeah, it’s a philosophical question, which means you need a philosophical answer. Spitballing won’t help you figure shit out a priori because it turns out that learning how to think a priori effectively takes years of hard graft and is called “studying philosophy”. You should be asking people like me what “know” means in this context and what distinguishes memory in human beings from “memory” in an LLM (a great deal, as it happens!)

[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 14 points 7 months ago

don't compare your child to a chatbot wtf

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 13 points 7 months ago

The dehumanization that happens just because people think LLMs are impressive (they are, just not that impressive) is insane.

[-] ebu@awful.systems 9 points 7 months ago

need to be able to think LLM's are impressive, probably

surely tech will save us all, right?

load more comments (30 replies)
load more comments (119 replies)
load more comments (121 replies)
this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
639 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1489 readers
31 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