Understanding ChatGPT
“It’s a glorified word predictor” is becoming increasingly maddening to read.<p>Do tell— how can you prove humans are any different?<p>The most common “proofs” I’ve seen:<p>“Humans are more complex”. Ok, so you’re implying we add more complexity (maybe more modalities?); if more complexity is added, will you continue to say “LLMs are just word predictors”?<p>“Humans are actually reasoning. LLMs are not.” Again, how would you measure such a thing?<p>“LLMs are confidently wrong .” How is this relevant ? And are humans not confidently wrong as well?<p>“LLMs are good at single functions, but they can’t understand a system.” This is simply a matter of increasing the context limit, is it not? And was there not a leaked OpenAI document showing a future offering of 64k tokens?<p>All that aside, I’m forever amazed how a seemingly forward-looking group of people is continually dismissive of a tool that came out LITERALLY 4 MONTHS AGO, with its latest iteration less than TWO WEEKS ago. For people familiar with stuff like Moore’s law, it’s absolutely wild to see how people act like LLM progress is forever tied to its current , apparently static, state.