Ask Lemmy

25999 readers

2228 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

199

Is chatgpt proof that standard tests are bad measures of intelligence (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

LLMs are solving MCAT, the bar test, SAT etc like they're nothing. At this point their performance is super human. However they'll often trip on super simple common sense questions, they'll struggle with creative thinking.

Is this literally proof that standard tests are not a good measure of intelligence?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This isn't quite correct. There is the possibility of biasing the results with the training data, but models are performing well at things they haven't seen before.

For example, this guy took an IQ test, rewrote the visual questions as natural language questions, and gave the test to various LLMs:

https://www.maximumtruth.org/p/ais-ranked-by-iq-ai-passes-100-iq

These are questions with specific wording that the models won't have been trained on given he wrote them out fresh. Old models have IQ results that are very poor, but the SotA model right now scores a 100.

People who are engaging with the free version of ChatGPT and think "LLMs are dumb" is kind of like talking to a moron human and thinking "humans are dumb." Yes, the free version of ChatGPT has around a 60 IQ on that test, but it also doesn't represent the cream of the crop.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe, but this is giving the AI a lot of help. No one rewrites visual questions for humans who take IQ tests. That spacial reasoning is part of the test.

In reality, no AI would pass any test because the first part is writing your name on the paper. Just doing that is beyond most AIs because they literally don't have to deal with the real world. They don't actually understand anything.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

They don't actually understand anything.

This isn't correct and has been shown not to be correct in research over and over and over in the past year.

The investigation reveals that Othello-GPT encapsulates a linear representation of opposing pieces, a factor that causally steers its decision-making process. This paper further elucidates the interplay between the linear world representation and causal decision-making, and their dependence on layer depth and model complexity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07582

Sizeable differences exist among model capabilities that are not captured by their ranking on popular LLM leaderboards ("cramming for the leaderboard"). Furthermore, simple probability calculations indicate that GPT-4's reasonable performance on k=5 is suggestive of going beyond "stochastic parrot" behavior (Bender et al., 2021), i.e., it combines skills in ways that it had not seen during training.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.17567

We introduce SELF-DISCOVER, a general framework for LLMs to self-discover the task-intrinsic reasoning structures to tackle complex reasoning problems that are challenging for typical prompting methods. Core to the framework is a self-discovery process where LLMs select multiple atomic reasoning modules such as critical thinking and step-by-step thinking, and compose them into an explicit reasoning structure for LLMs to follow during decoding. SELF-DISCOVER substantially improves GPT-4 and PaLM 2's performance on challenging reasoning benchmarks such as BigBench-Hard, grounded agent reasoning, and MATH, by as much as 32% compared to Chain of Thought (CoT).

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03620

Just a few of the relevant papers you might want to check out before stating things as facts.