[HN Gopher] Peter Norvig critically reviews AlphaCode's code qua... ___________________________________________________________________ Peter Norvig critically reviews AlphaCode's code quality Author : wrycoder Score : 176 points Date : 2022-12-16 20:38 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | bombcar wrote: | _The marvel is not that the bear dances well, but that the bear | dances at all._ | | The surprising thing is that it can make code that works - | however, given that code can be _tested_ in ways that "art" and | "text" cannot (yet), perhaps it's not that strange. | dekhn wrote: | I read this as a very well written feature request to the | AlphaCode engineers (or anybody working on this problem). | | I really like Peter's writing style. It's fairly clear, and | understating, while also making it quite clear there are areas | for improvement in reach. For those who haven't read it, Peter | also wrote this gem: https://norvig.com/chomsky.html which is an | earlier comment about natural language processing, and | https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c... | which is a play on Wigner's "Unreasonable Effectiveness of | Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". | MoSattler wrote: | I wasn't aware AI can already take plain English text and create | functioning software. | | I guess it's time to look for another profession. | tareqak wrote: | When I saw the test suite that Peter Norvig created for the | program, I immediately thought to myself "what if there was a LLM | program that knew how to generate test cases for arbitrary | functions?" | | I think a tool like that even in an early incomplete and | imperfect form could help out a lot of people. The first version | could take all available test cases as training data. The second | one could instead have a curated list of test cases that pass | some bar. | | Update: I thought of a second idea also based on Peter Norvig's | observation: what about an LLM program that adds documentation / | comments to the code without changing the code itself? I know | that it is a lot easier for me to proofread writing that I have | not seen before, so it would help me. Maybe a version would | simply allow for selecting which blocks of code need commenting | based on lines selected in an IDE? | Buttons840 wrote: | How about the other way. I define a few test cases and the AI | writes code for a generalized solution. Not just code that | regurgitates the test cases, but that generalizes well to | unseen cases. You'll notice this is simply the machine learning | problem restated. | | The next step could be to have the AI write code that describes | its own reasoning, balancing length of code and precision. | spawarotti wrote: | > I define a few test cases and the AI writes code for a | generalized solution | | How about the AI never writing any code, just training "mini | AI" / network that implements the test cases, of course in a | generalized way, the way our current AI systems work. We | could continue adding test cases for corner cases until the | "mini AI" is so good that we no longer can come up with a | test case that trips it over. | | In such future, the skill of being comprehensive tester would | be everything, and the only code written by humans would be | the test cases. | kubb wrote: | That's potentially more helpful than writing the code itself. | Writing unit tests can take most of the development time. | mrguyorama wrote: | And literally throwing random half junk unit tests at your | code will better test it than you writing unit tests that are | blind to the problems it might have because you wrote both | and both bits of code have the same blind spots. | | We should probably be developing systems that fuzz all code | by default. | happyopossum wrote: | > I find it problematic that AlphaCode dredges up relevant code | fragments from its training data, without fully understanding the | reasoning for the fragments. | | As a non-programmer who has to 'code' occasionally, this is | literally what I do, but it takes me hours or days to hammer out | a few hundred lines of crap python. Using a generative model or | llm that can write equally crappy scripts in seconds feels like a | HUUUGE win for my use cases. | peteradio wrote: | A lazy ineffective person is preferable over a prodigious | idiot. | lisper wrote: | Is it just me, or is that problem description completely | incoherent? | drexlspivey wrote: | Problem: You open a terminal and type the string 'ababa' but | you are free to replace any button presses with backspace. Is | there a combination where the terminal reads `ba` at the end? | lisper wrote: | Thanks, your version makes a lot more sense. | hoten wrote: | If the AI could do this simplification just as you did, I'd | find that far more exciting! | krackers wrote: | It took me way too long to understand it as well. And the fact | that you press backspace _instead_ of a character, instead of | allowing backspace to be pressed at any time (which would turn | it into checking if B is a subsequence of A I believe). | zug_zug wrote: | Good god I'm not alone. For me it's fascinating that an AI can | make sense of that garble of words. I spent 4 minutes trying to | read it and gave up. | [deleted] | aidenn0 wrote: | The Minerva geometry answer looks like something one of my kids | would have written: guess the answer then write a bunch of mathy- | sounding gobbledygook as the "reasoning." | | Also, that answer would have gotten 4/5 points at the local high- | school. | fergal_reid wrote: | Huge respect for Norvig, but I think this is a shallow analysis. | | For example, I just took Norvig's 'backspacer alpha' function and | asked ChatGPT about it. It gave me an ok English language | description. It names the variables more descriptively on | command. | | I'm sure it'll hallucinate and make errors, but I think we're all | still learning about how to get the capabilities we want out of | these models. I wouldn't rush to judgement about what they can | and can't do based on what they did; shallow analysis can mislead | both optimistically and pessimistically at the moment! | gok wrote: | _They are vulnerable to reproducing poor quality training data_ | | _They are good locally, but can have trouble keeping the focus | all the way through a problem_ | | _They can hallucinate incorrect statements_ | | _does not generate documentation or tests that would build trust | in the code_ | | These observations are about human programmers, right? | chubot wrote: | Somewhat dumb question: I wonder what tool he used for the red | font code annotations and arrows? What tool would you use, like | Photoshop or something? And just screenshot the code from some | editor or I guess Jupyter? | circuit wrote: | Most likely Preview.app's built-in annotation tools | neilv wrote: | > They need to be trained to provide trust. The AlphaCode model | generates code, but does not generate documentation or tests that | would build trust in the code. | | I don't understand how this would build trust. | | If they generate test cases, you have to validate the test cases. | | If they generate documentation, you have to validate the | documentation. | | For a one-shot drop of code from an unknown party, test cases and | docs have been signals that the writer know that's a thing, and | they at least put effort into typing it. So maybe we assume more | likely that they also used good practices with the code. | | But that's signalling to build trust, and adding those to build | trust without addressing the reasons we _shouldn 't_ have trust | in the code (as this article points out) seems like it would be | building _misplaced_ trust. | | (Though there is some benefit to doc for validation, due to the | idea behind the old saying "if your code and documentation | disagree, then both are probably wrong".) | RodgerTheGreat wrote: | I think the notes at the end bury the lede; in particular: | | > "I save the most time by just observing that a problem is an | adaptation of a common problem. For a problem like 2016 day 10, | it's just topological sort." This suggests that the contest | problems have a bias towards retrieving an existing solution (and | adapting it) rather than synthesizing a new solution. | mrguyorama wrote: | The fact is, the vast majority of programming IS just dredging | up a best solution and modifying it to meet your specifics. | Some of the best and still most current algorithms are from | like the 60s. | | That doesn't make neural networks "smart", and instead says | more about our profession and how terrible we in general are at | it. | Octokat wrote: | His repo is a gold mine | trynewideas wrote: | This is a great review but it still misses what seems like the | point to me: these models don't do any actual reasoning. They're | doing the same thing that DALL-E _etc._ does with images: using a | superhuman store of potential outcomes to mimic an outcome that | the person entering the prompt would then click a thumbs-up icon | on in a training model. | | Asking why the model doesn't explain how the code it generated | works is like asking a child who just said their first curse word | what it means. The model and child alike don't know or care, they | just know how people react to it. | jujugoboom wrote: | Stochastic Parrot is the term you're looking for | https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922 | fossuser wrote: | What is this then: | https://twitter.com/jbrukh/status/1603868836729610250?s=46&t... | | That looks a lot like reasoning to me. At some point these | disputing definitions arguments don't matter. Some people will | endlessly debate whether other people are conscious or | "zombies" but it's not particularly useful. | | This isn't yet AGI, but the progress we're seeing doesn't look | like failure to me. It looks like what I'd predict to see | before AGI exists. | dekhn wrote: | Norvig discusses this topic in detail in | https://norvig.com/chomsky.html As you can see, he has a | measured and empirical approach to the topic. If I had to | guess, I think he suspects that we will see an emergent | reasoning property once models obtain enough training data and | algorithmic complexity/functionality, and is happy to help | guide the current developers of ML in the directions he thinks | are promising. | | (this is true for many people who work in ML towards the goal | of AGI: given what we've seen over the past few decades, but | especially in the past few years, it seems reasonable to | speculate that we will be able to make agents that demonstrate | what appears to be AGI, without actually knowing if they posses | qualia, or thought processes similar to those that humans | subjectively experience) | trynewideas wrote: | That's a great link and read, thanks for that. | | While I do think models are, can be, and likely must be a | useful _component_ of a system capable of AGI, I don 't seem | to share the optimism (of Norvig or a lot of the | GPT/AlphaCode/Diffusion audience) that models _alone_ have a | high-enough ceiling to approach or reach full AGI, even if | they fully conquer language. | | It'll still fundamentally _only_ be modeling behavior, which | - to paraphrase that piece - misses the point about what | general intelligence is and how it works. | r_hoods_ghost wrote: | I suspect that a lot of AI researchers will end up holding | the exact opposite position to a lot of philosophers of mind | and treat AGIs as philosophical zombies, even if they behave | as if they are conscious. The more thoughtful ones will | hopefully leave the door open to the possibility that they | might be conscious beings with subjective experiences | equivalent to their own, and treat them as such, because if | they are then the moral implications of not doing so are | disturbing. | oliveshell wrote: | I'm happy to "leave the door open," i.e., I'd love to be | shown evidence to the contrary, but: | | If the entity doing the cognition didn't evolve said | cognition to navigate a threat-filled world in a vulnerable | body, then I have no reason at all to suspect that its | experience is anything like my own. | | edit: JavaJosh fleshed this idea out a bit more. I'm not | sure if putting ChatGPT into a body would help, but my | intuitive sympathies in this field are in the direction of | embodied cognition [1], to be sure. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition | javajosh wrote: | Modern AI software lacks a body, exempting it from a wide | variety of suffering. But also of any notion of selfhood | that we might share. If modern software said "Help, I'm | suffering" we'd rightly be skeptical of the claim. Unless | suffering is an emergent property (dubious) then the | statement is, at best, a simulation of suffering and at | worst noise or a lie. | | That said, things change once you get a body. If you put | ChatGPT into a simulated body in a simulated world, and | allowed it to move and act, perhaps giving it a motivation, | then the combination of ChatGPT and the state of that body, | would become something very close to a "self", that might | even qualify for personhood. It is scary, by the way, that | such a weighty decision be left to us, mere mortals. It | seems to me that we should err on the side of granting too | much personhood rather than too little, since the cost of | treating an object like a person is far less than treating | a person like an object. | hamburga wrote: | Side question: how do we know if humans possess qualia? | | On the other hand, I think by definition we can be sure that | a ML thought process won't ever be similar to a human thought | process (ours is tied up with feelings connected to our | physical tissues, our breath, etc). | quotemstr wrote: | Reasoning is already emergent in large language models: | https://yaofu.notion.site/How-does-GPT-Obtain-its-Ability- | Tr... | | LLMs can do chain-of-reasoning analysis. If you ask, say, | ChatGPT to explain, step by step, how it arrived at an | answer, it will. The capability seems to be a function of | size. These big models coming out these days are _not_ simply | dumb token predictors. | jameshart wrote: | We don't know if humans possess qualia. I also don't know if | we should take humans' word for it that they experience | 'thought processes'. | dekhn wrote: | that's why I added the second clause: " thought processes | similar to those that humans subjectively experience". | Because personally I suspect that consciousness, free will, | qualia, etc, are subjective processes we introspect but | cannot fully explain (yet, or possibly ever). | maweki wrote: | Turing said, that while you never know whether somebody | else actually thinks or not, it's still polite to assume. | jgilias wrote: | Maybe silly, but this is how I treat chatGPT. I mean, I | don't actually think it's conscious. But the | conversations with it end up human enough for me to not | want to be an asshole to it. Just in case. | jameshart wrote: | The basilisk will remember this. | 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: | Pretty sure it's an informational zombie. | jhedwards wrote: | I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but the fact | that I can write my thoughts/thought process down in a form | that other people can independently consume and understand | seems sufficient proof of their existence to me. | space_fountain wrote: | Large scale language models can do that too (or rather | pretend to) and they'll only get better at it | omarhaneef wrote: | You don't know if other humans do, but you know at least | one human that does: yourself (presumably). | [deleted] | LegitShady wrote: | you know you possess qualia, if you did you would think it | reasonable to assume that at least some of the species you | come from, which exhibits many of the same characteristics | in thought and body, probably also possess it, unless you | believe yourself to be a highly atypical example of your | species. | | If you're not sure if you possess qualia, we're back to | Descartes. | goatlover wrote: | You don't experience inner dialog? Some people don't, but I | assume you dream. | eternalban wrote: | A language model does not have to reason to be able to produce | textual matter corresponding to code. For example, somewhere, n | blogs were written about algorithm x. Elsewhere, z archives in | github have the algo implemented in various languages. | Correlating that bit of text from say wiki and related code is | precisely what it has been doing anyway. Remember: it has no | sense of semantics - it is "tokens" all the way down. So, the | fact that _you_ see the code as code and the explanation as | explanation is completely opaque to the LLM. All it has to do | is match things up. | johnfn wrote: | I'm not the first to say it, but the distinction over whether | models do any "actual reasoning" or not seems moot to me. | Whether or not they do reasoning, they answer questions with a | decent degree of accuracy, and that degree of accuracy is only | going up as we feed the models more data. Whether or not they | "do actual reasoning" simply won't matter. | | They're already superhuman in some regards; I don't think that | I could have coded up the solution to that problem in 5 | seconds. :) | didericis wrote: | I strongly disagree. | | Humans have perceptual systems we can never fully understand | for the same reasons no mathematical system can ever be | provably consistent and complete. We cannot prove the | reliability and accuracy of our perception with our | perception. | | The only thing which suggests the reliability of our | perception is our existence. The better ways of perceiving | make a better map of reality that makes persistence more | likely. Our ability to manipulate reality and achieve desired | outcomes is what distinguishes good perception from bad | perception. | | If data directed by human perception is fed into these | systems, they have an amazing ability to condense and | organize accurate/good faith but relatively unstructured | knowledge that is entered into them. They are and will remain | extremely useful because of that ability. | | But they do not have access to reality because they have not | been grown from it through evolution. That means that | fundamentally they have _no error correcting beyond human | input_. As systems become increasingly unintelligible due to | increasing the scale of the data, these systems are going to | become more and more disconnected from reality, and _less_ | accurate. | | Think of how nearly every financial disaster occurs despite | increasingly sophisticated economic models that build off of | more and more data. As you get more and more abstraction | needed to handle more and more data, you get more and more | _error_. | | There is a reason biological systems tap out at a certain | size, large organizations decay over time, most animals | reproduce instead of live forever. Errors in large complex | systems are what nature has been fighting for billions of | years, and tend to compound in subtle and pernicious ways. | | Imagine a world in which AI systems are not fed carefully | categorized human data, but are operating in an internet in | which 5% is AI data. Then 15%. Then 50%. Then 75%. Then what | human data there is gets influenced by AI content and humans | doubting reality based categorizations because of social | pressure/because AI is perceived to be better. Very soon you | get self referential systems of AI data feeding AI and | further and further distance from original source perception | and categorization. Self referential group think is | disastrous enough when only humans are involved. If you add | machines which you cannot appeal to and are entirely | deferential to statistical majorities, which then become even | more entrenched self referential statistical majorities, you | very quickly become entirely disconnected from any notion of | reality. | trynewideas wrote: | I want to be clear that I still find it impressive, in the | same way I find Riffusion impressive. If anything, I'm | looking at Norvig's pointing out that "the biggest issue is | that there is no explanation of why the code is the way it | is, no justification for how it works." The model can't and | won't; it's an unreasonable expectation, and I can't tell | whether Norvig is asking for it in good faith. | | If I assume he is, and his proposed suggestions that the | model "participate in a conversation that leads to the kind | of questions and answers we discussed here, thereby building | trust in the program" and "generate documentation or tests | that would build trust in the code" are also in good faith, | then I maintain that he's still missing a fundamental | limitation of these models even as he outlines its shape with | great specificity. They literally and demonstrably are | incapable of coherently doing what he wants; they can't be | trained to engender trust, only to mimic actions that might | by generating novel responses based on patterns. | | That would still not be reasoning through the problem to | engineer a solution, it's just an extremely effective, | superhuman con of novel mimicry. Which, again, is still | really, _really_ impressive, and even potentially useful, but | in a different way than we might want or expect it to be, and | in a dangerous way to use as a stable foundation for | iteration toward AGI. | ookdatnog wrote: | Reasoning is meaningfully distinct from what the models do | now. You can ask ChatGPT to multiply two smallish natural | numbers and often it will give the correct answer. Now look | what happens if you ask it to multiply two very large | numbers: | | > To multiply two large numbers, such as 3146746135164684 | times 468473136468433, we can use the traditional | multiplication algorithm. This algorithm involves breaking | the numbers down into smaller groups of digits, multiplying | each group by the corresponding group of digits in the other | number, and then adding up the products to find the final | result. | | > Here is an example of how to multiply 3146746135164684 | times 468473136468433 using the traditional multiplication | algorithm: | | > Break the numbers down into groups of digits. For example, | we could group the digits of 3146746135164684 as 314, 6746, | 135, 1646, 84 and group the digits of 468473136468433 as | 4684, 7313, 6468, 433. | | > Multipply each group of digits by the corresponding group | of digits in the other number. For example, we would multiply | 314 times 4684 to get 1470196, 6746 times 7313 to get | 49470158, 135 times 6468 to get 873980, 1646 times 433 to get | 708338, and 84 times 1 to get 84. | | > Add up the products to find the final result. In this case, | the final result would be 1470196 + 49470158 + 873980 + | 708338 + 84 = 146845556. | | > Therefore, the result of multiplying 3146746135164684 times | 468473136468433 using the traditional multiplication | algorithm is 146845556. | | It's not just that the answer is wrong, is that it's complete | nonsense. | | Reasoning is a style of thinking that scales. You may be more | likely to get the wrong answer in a very long chain of | reasoning because at every step you have a nonzero chance of | making a mistake, but the mistake is identifiable and | explainable. That's why teachers ask you to show your work. | Even if you get the answer wrong, they can see at a glance | whether you understand the material or not. We can see at a | glance that ChatGPT does not understand multiplication. | johnfn wrote: | I don't think I buy this argument. ChatGPT seems to | understand how to reason about a large multiplication the | same that a 6 or 7 year old might, and I would expect a 6 | or 7 year old to make similarly large errors. No one claims | that 6 or 7 year olds are unable to reason. | fossuser wrote: | Yeah, in the original gpt-3 paper one of the more | interesting bits was that it made similar off by one | errors a human would make when doing arithmetic (and they | controlled for memorized test data). | nighthawk454 wrote: | This is a sort of dangerous interpretation. The point of | saying model's "don't do reasoning" is to help us understand | their strengths and weaknesses. Currently, most models are | objectively trained to be "Stochastic Parrots" (as a sibling | comment brought up). They do the "gut feeling" answer. But | the reasoning part is straight up not in their objectives. | Nor is it in their ability, by observation. | | There's a line of thought that if we're impressed with what | we have, if it just gets bigger maybe eventually 'reasoning' | will just emerge as a side-effect. This is somewhat unclear | and not really a strategy per se. It's kind of like saying | Moore's Law will get us to quantum computers. It's not clear | that what we want is a mere scale-up of what we have. | | > Whether or not they do reasoning, they answer questions | with a decent degree of accuracy, and that degree of accuracy | is only going up as we feed the models more data. | | Kind of. They don't so much "answer" questions as search for | stuff. Current models are giant searchable memory banks with | fuzzy interpolation. This interpolation gives some synthesis | ability for producing "novel" answers but it's still | basically searching existing knowledge. Not really | "answering" things based on an understanding. | | As long as it's right the distinction may not matter. But the | danger is a "gut feeling" model will _always_ produce an | answer and _always_ sound confident. Because that's what it's | trained to do: produce good-sounding stuff. If it happens to | be correct, then great. But it's not logical or reasonable | currently. And worse, you can't really tell which you're | getting just by the output. | | > Whether or not they "do actual reasoning" simply won't | matter. | | Sure it will. There's entire tasks they categorically can't | do, or worse can't be trusted with, unless we can introduce | reasoning or similar. | | > They're already superhuman in some regards; I don't think | that I could have coded up the solution to that problem in 5 | seconds. :) | | This is superhuman in the way that Google Search is. You | couldn't search the entire internet that fast either, but you | don't think Google Search "feels the true meaning of art" or | anything. | johnfn wrote: | > Kind of. They don't so much "answer" questions as search | for stuff. Current models are giant searchable memory banks | with fuzzy interpolation. This interpolation gives some | synthesis ability for producing "novel" answers but it's | still basically searching existing knowledge. Not really | "answering" things based on an understanding. | | I don't really get this line of reasoning. e.g. I can ask | DALL-E to produce, famously, an avocado armchair, or any | other number of images which have 0 results on google (or | "had" - the armchair got pretty popular afterwards). I can | ask ChatGPT, Copilot, etc, to solve problems which have 0 | hits on Google. It's pretty obvious to me that these models | are not simply "searching" an extremely large knowledge | base for an existing answer. Whether they apply "reasoning" | or "extremely multidimensional synthesis across hundreds of | thousands of existing solutions" is a question of | semantics. It's also perhaps a question of philosophy, and | an interesting one, but practically it doesn't seem to | matter. | | If you believe there is some meaningful difference between | the two, you'd have to show me how to quantify that. | quotemstr wrote: | > There's a line of thought that if we're impressed with | what we have, if it just gets bigger maybe eventually | 'reasoning' will just emerge as a side-effect. This is | somewhat unclear and not really a strategy per se. It's | kind of like saying Moore's Law will get us to quantum | computers. It's not clear that what we want is a mere | scale-up of what we have. | | Reasoning ability really does seem to emerge from scale: | | https://yaofu.notion.site/How-does-GPT-Obtain-its-Ability- | Tr... | visarga wrote: | > There's a line of thought that if we're impressed with | what we have, if it just gets bigger maybe eventually | 'reasoning' will just emerge as a side effect. This is | somewhat unclear and not really a strategy per se. | | A recent analysis revealed that training on code might be | the reason GPT-3 acquired multi-step reasoning abilities. | It doesn't do that without code. So it looks like reasoning | is emerging as a side effect of code. | | (section 3, long article) https://yaofu.notion.site/How- | does-GPT-Obtain-its-Ability-Tr... | mrguyorama wrote: | "Do the models do any actual reasoning" is the difference | between your ML blackbox having a child's level of | understanding of things where it just repeats what it's been | trained on and just "monkey see monkey do" it's way to an | output, or whether it's actually mixing previous input and | predicting and modeling and producing an output. | | There's a bunch of famous research that shows a baby and | toddlers have basic understanding of physics. If you give a | crawling baby a small cliff but make a bridge out of glass, | the baby will refuse to cross it, because it's limited | understanding prevents it from knowing that the glass is safe | to crawl on and it won't fall. | | In contrast older humans, even those with a fear of heights, | are able to recognize that properly strong glass bridges are | perfectly safe, and they won't fall through them just because | they can see through them. | | What changes when you go from one to the next? Is it just | more data fed into the feedback machine, or does the brain | build entirely new circuits and pathways and systems to | process this more complicated modeling of the world and info | it gets? | | Everything about machine learning just assumes it's the | first, with no actual science to support it, and further | claims that neural nets with back-propagation are fully able | to model that system, even though we have no idea how the | brain corrects errors in it's modeling and a single neuron is | WAY more powerful than a small section of a neural network. | | These are literally the same mistakes made all the time in | the AI field. The field of AI made all these same claims of | human levels of intelligence back when the hot new thing was | "expert systems" where the plan was, surely if you make | enough if/else statements, you can model a human level | intelligence. When that proved dumb, we got an AI winter. | | There are serious open questions about neural networks and | current ML that the community just flat out ignores and | handwaves away, usually pretending that they are philosophy | questions when they aren't. "Can a giant neural network | exactly model what the human brain does" is not a philosophy | question. | visarga wrote: | It all boils down to having some sort of embodiment, or a | way to verify. For code it would suffice to let the model | generate and execute code, and learn from errors. Give it | enough "experience" with code execution and it will learn | on its own, like AlphaGo. Generate more data and retrain | the models a few times. | gfodor wrote: | Your analogy is reaching to the farthest edge case - one of | complete non-understanding and complete mimicry. The problem is | that language models _do_ understand concepts for some | reasonable definitions of understanding: they will use the | concept correct and with low error rate. So all you're really | pointing at here is an example where they still have poor | understanding, not that they have some innate inability to | understand. | | Alternatively, you need to provide a definition of | understanding which is falsifiable and shown to be false for | all concepts a language model could plausibly understand. | 60secs wrote: | This gets back to the simulation / emulation debate of Norvig | and Chomsky. Deep language models are essentially similar to | sophisticated Markov chains. | | http://web.cse.ohio-state.edu/~stiff.4/cse3521/norvig-chomsk... | PaulHoule wrote: | I'm skeptical of "explainable A.I." in many cases and I use the | curse words as an example. You really don't want to tease out | the thought process that got there, you just want the behavior | to stop. | olalonde wrote: | > This is a great review but it still misses what seems like | the point to me: these models don't do any actual reasoning. | | Hmmm... I have seen multiple examples of ChatGPT doing actual | reasoning. | jvm___ wrote: | In my head I picture these models like if you built a massive | scaffold. Just boxes upon boxes, enough to fill a whole school | gym, or even cover a football field. Everything is bolted | together. | | You walk up to one side and Say "write me a poem on JVM". The | signals race through the cube and your answer appears on the | other side. You want to change something, go back and say | another thing - new answer on the other side. | | But it's all fixed together like metal scaffolding. The network | doesn't change. Sure, it's massive and has a bajillion routes | through it, but it's not fixed. | | The next step is to make the grid flexible. It can mold and | reshape itself based on inputs and output results. I think the | challenge is to keep the whole thing together, while allowed it | to shape-shift. Too much movement and your network looses parts | of itself, or collapses altogether. | | Just because we can build a complex, but fixed, scaffolding | system, doesn't mean we can build one that adapts and stays | together. Broken is a more likely outcome than AGI. | yesenadam wrote: | > it's massive and has a bajillion routes through it, but | it's not fixed. | | I _think_ you meant to write "but it's fixed." | [deleted] | aerovistae wrote: | fantastic analogy, A+ if you came up with that | TreeRingCounter wrote: | This is such a silly and trivially debunked claim. I'm shocked | it comes up so frequently. | | These systems can generate _novel content_. They manifestly | haven 't just memorized a bunch of stuff. | throw_nbvc1234 wrote: | Coming up with novel content doesn't necessarily mean it can | reason (depending on your definition of reason). Take 3 | examples: | | 1) Copying existing bridges 2) Merging concepts from multiple | existing bridges in a novel way with much less effort then a | human would take to do the same. 3) Understanding the | underlying physics and generating novel solutions to building | a bridge | | The difference between 2 and 3 isn't necessarily the output | but how it got to that output; focusing on the output, the | lines are blurry. If the AI is able to explain why it came to | a solution you can tease out the differences between 2 and 3. | And it's probably arguable that for many subject matters | (most art?) the difference between 2 and 3 might not matter | all that much. But you wouldn't want an AI to design a new | bridge unsupervised without knowing if it was following | method 2 or method 3. | mrguyorama wrote: | Children produce novel sentences all the time, simply because | they don't know how stuff is supposed to go together. "Novel | content" isn't a step forward. "Novel content that is valid | and correct and possibly an innovation" has always been the | claim, but there's no mathematical or scientific proof. | | How much of this stuff is just a realization of the classic | "infinite monkeys and typewriters" concept? | thundergolfer wrote: | Always a pleasure to read Norvig's Python posts. His Python | fluency is excellent, but, more atypically, he provides such | unfussy, attentive, and detailed explanations about why the | better code is better. | | Re-reading the README, he analogizes his approach so well: | | > But if you think of programming like playing the piano--a craft | that can take years to perfect--then I hope this collection can | help. | | If someone restructured this PyTudes repo into a course, it'd | likely be best Python course available anywhere online. | ipv6ipv4 wrote: | AlphaCode doesn't need to by perfect, or even particularly good. | The question is when AlphaCode, or an equivalent, is good enough | for a sufficient number of problems. Like C code can always be | made faster than Python, Python performance is good enough (often | 30x slower than C) for a very wide set of problems while being | much easier to use. | | In Norvig's example, the code is much slower than ideal (50x | slower), it adds unnecessary code, and yet, it generated correct | code many times faster than anyone could ever hope to. An easy to | use black box that produces correct results can be good enough. | alar44 wrote: | Absolutely. I've been using it to create Slack bots over the | last week. It's cuts out a massive amount of time researching | APIs and gives me good enough, workable, understandable | starting points that saves me hours worth of fiddling and | refactoring. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-16 23:00 UTC)