This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Firstly, can OP clarify if he's talking about 4 or 3.5? Secondly, look at what people are already doing in the field of law and earning discounts: https://twitter.com/jbrowder1/status/1652387444904583169
GPT-4 is, in my view, Generally Intelligent. I can ask it to submit a corporatese style job application for the hordes of Genghis Khan, I can have it dream up sequels to video games, it can manage moderately complex programming tasks and bugfix them, it can emulate the format of Grand Designs, write half-decent parts from the Simpsons... Aside from censorship and limitations with how much memory it can store in a conversation, is this not general intelligence?
Certainly there's confusion as to the definition of AGI. GPT-4 doesn't meet the qualification 'perform most human functions as good as or better than humans' because it can't draw or use a mouse, amongst other things. But in terms of matching human intelligence, it is basically there.
Human intelligence is not all it's cracked up to be. Consider that about half of the UK Parliament can't answer a basic probability question. GPT-4 has no problem with this, nor does GPT-3.5.
Apologies, I wrote this fairly early in the morning and forgot to include this information, I was using the free 3.5v.
More options
Context Copy link
GPT-4 can draw (albeit not well) if asked to output SVG or TikZ or some other human-readable graphics format.
I've tried a set of qualitative math/engineering questions on LLMs. The Bard and GPT-3.5 answers were about what I'd expect from an undergraduate starting to study the field: roughly 25% of the answers were true-and-useful, 50% true-but-not-useful (not a bad thing, just statements that were adding context to the answer rather than being the answer), 25% not-true (though even these were oversimplifications and natural misunderstandings, not utter hallucinations). If a human had given those answers I'd have considered them a kid worth mentoring but I wouldn't have expected them to save me any work in the near future.
The GPT-4 answers were better than I'd expect from a typical grad student who had just passed an intro class on the subject. Adequate depth, more breadth, and this time the statements weren't 25/50/25, they were about 75/25/0. I passed my questions to a friend's brother who had a subscription, but now I'm tempted to subscribe myself, give the thing my whole final exam, and see how it does on the quantitative + symbolic questions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link