Others (e.g., Eliezer Yudkowsky) have gone even further and compared GPT 4.0 to a baby. GPT 4.0 is, in the eyes of some, very early in its development trajectory. But to be fair, no one knows how much further the development of transformer models will go.
But that also means you don't know whether you should be comparing it to a child or a professor.
And, finally, I think you completely missed my point. Even if GPT's development stalls at its current level of sophistication, your example only illustrates that it is (relatively) "stupid"--NOT that it lacks understanding.
>Your example illustrates that it doesn't fully grasp the understanding of language we're taught in English class, not that it doesn't understand language at all.
In that first sentence? Would you like me to rephrase it?
Why would I compare a language model that is at version 4.0 to a child? I would expect version 4.0 to be better than a professor in English.
Others (e.g., Eliezer Yudkowsky) have gone even further and compared GPT 4.0 to a baby. GPT 4.0 is, in the eyes of some, very early in its development trajectory. But to be fair, no one knows how much further the development of transformer models will go.
But that also means you don't know whether you should be comparing it to a child or a professor.
And, finally, I think you completely missed my point. Even if GPT's development stalls at its current level of sophistication, your example only illustrates that it is (relatively) "stupid"--NOT that it lacks understanding.
Where in your earlier comment is it clear what your point was?
>Your example illustrates that it doesn't fully grasp the understanding of language we're taught in English class, not that it doesn't understand language at all.
In that first sentence? Would you like me to rephrase it?