Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Emily M. Bender (she/her)

Okay, taking a few moments to reat (some of) the #gpt4 paper. It's laughable the extent to which the authors are writing from deep down inside their xrisk/longtermist/"AI safety" rabbit hole.

Things they aren't telling us:
1) What data it's trained on
2) What the carbon footprint was
3) Architecture
4) Training method

>>

2 comments
Emily M. Bender (she/her)

But they do make sure to spend a page and half talking about how they vewwy carefuwwy tested to make sure that it doesn't have "emergent properties" that would let is "create and act on long-term plans" (sec 2.9).

>>

Emily M. Bender (she/her)

I also lol'ed at "GPT-4 was evaluated on a variety of exams originally designed for humans": They seem to think this is a point of pride, but it's actually a scientific failure. No one has established the construct validity of these "exams" vis a vis language models.

For more on missing construct validity and how it undermines claims of 'general' 'AI' capabilities, see:

datasets-benchmarks-proceeding

>>

Go Up