> Gpt hallucinates a lot and is unreliable for any factual work.

No, I understand that's what you're saying, however, this is not a claim that you can even check. You have demonstrated already that your definitions are not aligned with generally accepted ones (particularly for intuition), so without concrete examples this statement is hard to take into account seriously.

> Your wall of text can be summarized as, “I’m gonna debate you by suggesting no one knows the definition of AGI.”

I'm sad that's what you got from my response. The point was to challenge your claims about whether GPT4 is or isn't AGI based on the mere fact you're judging that over properties which might be irrelevant for the definition. It is sad that you are personally attacking me instead of addressing my concerns.

> No one knows what the definition of intuition is

That is not correct. Here are some definitions of definition:

• an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than fact (Cambridge)
• the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference (Merriam-Webster)
• a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence : a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why (Brittanica)

You might notice that all these 3 definitions are satisfied by DL models in general.

> but what we know is that memory does not play a part in it.

This is also not true: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1555343416686476

The question is - why are you making stuff up despite the counterevidence being 1 Google search away?

> It’s actually hilarious that you bring up source citation as some form of trump card after I mention how everything you know about GPT4 is something someone has told you to believe in without any real discernible and reproducible evidence.

I bring it up as you have not provided any other basis for your claims. You refuse to provide the logs for your claims to be checked. Your claims are contrary to my experience, and it seems others' experience as well. You claim things contrary to contemporary science. I do not want to discard your claims outright, I do not want to personally attack you despite being given ample opportunity to do so, I'm asking you to give me something we can discuss and not turn it into "you're wrong because I have a different experience".

> Instead of maybe asking me to spoon feed you spend a whole of 20 secs googling.

I'm not asking you to spoon feed me, I'm asking you to carry your own burden of proof. It's really shameful for a self-proclaimed person in academia to be offended by someone asking them for elaboration.

Now, could you explain what those links mean? The first one, for example, does not help your cause. Not only does it not concern GPT4, but rather Bard, a model significantly less performant than even ChatGPT, it also claims that the model is not actually hallucinating, but not understanding sarcasm.

The second link also doesn't help your cause - rather than examining the generalization potential of a model, it suggest the issue is with the data. It also does not evaluate the newer problems as a whole, but a subset.

The 3rd and 4th links also do not help your cause. First, they do not claim what you are claiming. Second, they list concerns (and I applaud them for at least elaborating a lot more than you), but they do not really test them. Rather than claims, they present hypotheses.

> “I don’t quite get it how works” + “it surprises me” ≠ it could maybe be sentient if I squint.

Yeah. Also note: "I don't quite get how it works" + "It doesn't satisfy my arbitrary criteria on generalization" ≠ It doesn't generalize

> after I acknowledged and corrected the mistake myself

I corrected your correction. It would be great if you could recognize that evaluation the performance on a small subset of problems is not equal to evaluating whether the model aces anything.

> maybe you have some word quota you were trying to fulfill with that

Not at all. I just want to be very clear, given that I am criticisng your (in)ability to clearly present arguments; doing otherwise would be hypocritical.

> My point is, it’s good at solving leetcode when it’s present in the training set.

Of course it is. However, your actual claim was this:

> Also the ones it does solve it solves at a really fast rate.

Your claim suggested that the speed at which it solves it is somehow relevant to the problems it solves correctly. This is demonstrably false, and that is what I corrected you on.

> Ps- also kindly refrain from passing remarks on my understanding of the subject when the only arguments you can make are refuting others without intellectual dissent.

I am not passing these remarks. You yourself claim you are not all that familiar with the topic. Some of your claims have not only cast doubt about your competence on the matter, but now even of the truthfulness of your experiences. For example, I have been beginning to doubt whether you have even used GPT4 given your reluctance to provide your logs.

The arguments I am making is that I don't have the same experience. And that's not only me... Note, however, that I am not confidently saying that I am right or you are wrong - I am, first and foremost, asking you to provide us with the logs so we can check your claims, that for now are contrary to the general public's opinion. Then we can discuss what actually happened.

> It’s quite easy to say, “no I don’t believe u prove it” while also not being able to distinguish between Q K and V if it hit u on the face.

It's also quite easy to copy paste the logs that could save us from what has now turned into a debate (and might soon lead to a block if personal attacks continue), yet here we are.

So I ask you again - can you provide us with the logs that you experienced hallucination with?

EDIT since he (u/BellyDancerUrgot) downvoted and blockedme

> Empty vessels make much noise seems to be a quote u live by. I’ll let the readers of this thread determine who between us has contributed to the discussion and who writes extensively verbose commentary , ironically , with 0 content.

I think whoever reads this is going to be sad. Ultimately, I think you should make sure as little people see this as possible, this kind of approach bring not only shame to your academic career, but also to you as a person. You are young, so you will learn not to be overly enthusiastic in time, though.