@johnjnay@CarnegieMellon@UCIrvine I’m pretty sure GPT-4 is smart enough to actually be fed a decent number of its wrong answers and figure out zero-shot what’s wrong with them.
New in Nature Human Behavior, Meta AI researchers show how current language models differ from the human brain & highlight the role of long-range & hierarchical predictions.
We hope these findings will help inform the next generation of AI ➡️ https://t.co/EC3f4s6Ens
@CyberdyneC@Simeon_Cps This is a point I often make to people, too, but for a totally different reason. Mainly I make it when people ask what it’s like to be dead. Instead, how about what it’s like to be dying, which is the question relevant here.
@DavidDeutschOxf into consideration in some form of an internally calculated search tree, often. So, you would have to give the human a perfect short term memory for them to ever make full use of the time equivalence if you switched and gave humans the speed advantage /2
@SmokeAwayyy A strong legal contract and government intervention would probably end up being involved once everyone was like, “Yeah, this is without a doubt AGI”. So it would be that no one says anything. Especially if they feel like it’s being taken seriously enough.
@Simeon_Cps I think it’s just too good for an unexpectedly large population pool of users now. Millions of users with day 1 access to something significantly more capable than GPT-3 is the epitome of unpredictability. They need to work on safeguarding its behavior for a few more months.