Submitted by currentscurrents t3_125uxab in MachineLearning
NotDoingResearch2 t1_je8l7oz wrote
Reply to comment by sdmat in [R] The Debate Over Understanding in AI’s Large Language Models by currentscurrents
Is this accurate though? Serious question as I’m not an expert on the use of jeans on Mars.
sdmat t1_je8p59n wrote
I think we can safely say this is:
> it's essential to note that relying solely on jeans for habitat survivability would not be sufficient.
I don't have a degree in exojeanology, but the ideas all seem to at least be at the level of smart generalist brainstorming.
Specifically:
- Contextually appropriate - these are plausibly relevant to the needs of a Martian colony
- Nontrivial - no "wear them as clothing" (GPT3.5 did this)
- Logical and well articulated - each is a clearly expressed and internally consistent concept
- Passes the "common sense" test - no linguistically valid statements that are ridiculous if you have general knowledge of the world. E.g. "Use jeans to signal ships in orbit", or GPT3.5's suggestion to use jeans as radiation shielding because denim is a thick fabric.
They aren't necessarily good ideas in the sense that NASA should be writing this down. But that isn't the point.
I would argue that behaviourally GPT4 demonstrates a great deal of understanding here and a notable lack of the "brittleness and unhumanlike errors" that 3.5 shows on the same question.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments