[cyost]

Would any hypothetical training data corpus even be sufficient to emulate Feynman? Could any AI have a sufficient grasp of the material being taught, have enough surety to avoid errors, mimic Feynman's writing+teaching style, and accomplish this feat in a reasonable budget and timeframe?

The example is obvious marketing hyperbole, of course, but it's just not going to happen beyond a superficial level unless we somehow create some kind of time-travelling panopticon. It's marred by lack of data (Feynman died in 1988), bad data (hagiographies of Feynman, this instance included), flawed assumptions (would Feynman even be an appropriate teaching assistant for everyone?), etc.

I wonder if AI fans keep doing this thing in hopes that the "wow factor" of having the greats being emulated by AI (Feynman, Bill Gates, Socrates, etc.) will paper over their fundamental insecurities about their investment in AI. Like, c'mon, this kind of thing is a bit silly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2ehY5QXSc

[nybsjytm]

> Feynman, Bill Gates, Socrates, etc.

One of these doesn't quite belong ;)

But these AI researchers don't even understand these figures except as advertising reference points. The Socratic dialogue in the "sparks of AGI" paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 has nothing whatsoever to do with Socrates or the way he argued.

Fourteen authors and not a single one seemed to realize there's any possible difference between a Socratic dialogue and a standard hack conversation where one person is named "Socrates."

[cyost]

> Prompt: Can you compare the two outputs above as if you were a teacher? [to GPT-4, the "two outputs" being GPT-4's and ChatGPT's attempts at a Socratic dialogue]

Okay, that's kinda funny lol.

It's a bit worrying how much the AI industry seems to be focusing on the superficial appearance of success (grandiose marketing claims, AI art that looks fine on first glance, AI mimicking peoples' appearances and speech patterns, etc.). I'm just your random layperson in the comment section, but it really seems like the field needed to be stuck in academia for a decade or two more. It hadn't quite finished baking yet.

[BeetleB]

> > Feynman, Bill Gates, Socrates, etc.

> One of these doesn't quite belong ;)

I asked GPT to find which one:

"The one that doesn't fit in is Bill Gates.

Richard Feynman and Socrates were primarily known for their contributions to science and philosophy, respectively. Feynman was a renowned theoretical physicist, and Socrates was a foundational philosopher.

Bill Gates, on the other hand, is primarily known as a businessman and co-founder of Microsoft, a leading software corporation. While he also has made contributions to technology and philanthropy, his primary domain is different from the scientific and philosophical realms of Feynman and Socrates."