Again, it's all coming from somewhere. Humans can react to stimuli in the natural environment and produce sounds and turn them into words. GPT has to be spoonfed a dataset a human made at some point.
It's an inherently limited model of the human brain. It pretends biology and electrochemistry aren't playing some important role 'statistics' cannot. It's GPT which has to do more legwork to be compared to a human…
GPT doesn't have an 'understanding' class or a 'reasoning' function or whatever. It's a really well put together piece of statistics and sentences like these show it doesn't really have a concept of 'making sense'. You…
The article isn't really denying GPT's capabilities of copying human text in a way that can fool other humans. Most of the questions these days are just a matter of 'well, can it think for itself?' or 'is it good enough…
I mean, it said it's not.
Again, it's all coming from somewhere. Humans can react to stimuli in the natural environment and produce sounds and turn them into words. GPT has to be spoonfed a dataset a human made at some point.
It's an inherently limited model of the human brain. It pretends biology and electrochemistry aren't playing some important role 'statistics' cannot. It's GPT which has to do more legwork to be compared to a human…
GPT doesn't have an 'understanding' class or a 'reasoning' function or whatever. It's a really well put together piece of statistics and sentences like these show it doesn't really have a concept of 'making sense'. You…
The article isn't really denying GPT's capabilities of copying human text in a way that can fool other humans. Most of the questions these days are just a matter of 'well, can it think for itself?' or 'is it good enough…
I mean, it said it's not.