And while it may be true that it is far from AGI, I don’t think calling it a parlor trick does it justice. I used it this morning to set up a new workout routine for myself after having it write a little boilerplate typescript code to bootstrap 70% of a micro service I want to set up. My girlfriend who is studying react got a lot of value out of it by having compile errors explained to her. My mum uses it to practice English. I am going to integrate GPT-4 into a new product where it provides tangible value for non technical users.
To be useful it does not need to be sentient or able to iterate on its own architecture.
Yeah I agree that’s fair, a parlor trick is perhaps a little harsh.
ChatGTP can provide value - It’s arguable whether having done that ‘with classical’ methods could have been more efficient or whether the end result is as good - (btw careful with code - in my experience ChatGTP often thinks it knows what is wrong but is way off - something an experienced coder would notice immediately).
Do you remember the tamagotchi? That also provided value to millions of people, many people thought of it as sentient even - was it? No - was it anywhere near AGI? No. If we can find good uses for the GTP models that were not possible or cost prohibitive before - then great. I think we just need to be clear - like the Tamagotchi - this is far from AGI and plugins/hugging face is not penultimate step before skynet.
Weird behaviour I’ve noticed is a lot of folks on the unimpressed/doomism side of AI consistently say GTP instead of GPT, I wonder why this pattern exists?
