this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1436 readers
124 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 1 points 6 months ago (30 children)

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 0 points 6 months ago (29 children)

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 0 points 6 months ago (22 children)

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 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] mawhrin@awful.systems 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 1 points 6 months ago

on the topic of which, this crossed my feed earlier

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well... I do agree with you but human brains are basically big prediction engines that use lookup tables, experience, to navigate around life. Obviously a super simplification, and LLMs are nowhere near humans, but it is quite a step in the direction.

[–] pikesley@mastodon.me.uk 1 points 6 months ago

@phoenixz @Soyweiser "Let's redefine what it means to be human, so we can say the LLM is human" have you bumped your head?

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)