In a demonstration, the engineers at OpenAI noted that the enhanced version of ChatGPT had outperformed 90 per cent of humans in some of the toughest exams in the US.
Automation isn't only coming for low skilled workers. It's literally going to wipe out middle class professional jobs at much greater speed than anyone anticipated.
90% is pretty weak. Computers already beat the worlds best chess and go players but it can’t even beat hunter wheres the blow on an LSAT so how smart can it really be? Also that website mock-up looks terrible.
Automation isn't only coming for low skilled workers. It's literally going to wipe out middle class professional jobs at much greater speed than anyone anticipated.
This - expect this time it's actually going to happen.
We're about to step into deep uncharted waters and it's coming fast. Very fast.
Curiously, skilled labor (electricians, plumbers, masons) might be the safest professions in the next decade. Robotics automation is nowhere near close or precise enough to handle fine motor skilled tasks that require some degree of problem solving / situation awareness. That might change though.
Careers that are going to disappear in 5 years:
-Copywriters (really any career that relies solely on the written word)
-Many attorneys (doc review can be done by AI for free with basically 100% accuracy, AI has demonstrated a very strong ability to logically reason within a legal context)
-Most software developers - CPT 4 produced bug-free code based on natural language inputs
-Anyone in the white collar "knowledge economy" is severely at risk now.
Real-world jobs that can't be done from home might be safe for a while.
Automation isn't only coming for low skilled workers. It's literally going to wipe out middle class professional jobs at much greater speed than anyone anticipated.
This - expect this time it's actually going to happen.
We're about to step into deep uncharted waters and it's coming fast. Very fast.
Curiously, skilled labor (electricians, plumbers, masons) might be the safest professions in the next decade. Robotics automation is nowhere near close or precise enough to handle fine motor skilled tasks that require some degree of problem solving / situation awareness. That might change though.
Careers that are going to disappear in 5 years:
-Copywriters (really any career that relies solely on the written word)
-Many attorneys (doc review can be done by AI for free with basically 100% accuracy, AI has demonstrated a very strong ability to logically reason within a legal context)
-Most software developers - CPT 4 produced bug-free code based on natural language inputs
-Anyone in the white collar "knowledge economy" is severely at risk now.
Real-world jobs that can't be done from home might be safe for a while.
I think 'smart homes' will eventually scale back the work for plumbers and electricians just as vehicle mechanics do less work now that cars are basically computers.
LSAT results are given in raw and percentile measures.
I was 99%ile--but so were the 5 other closest people I knew in law school! 4 of those others I considered bright, but one was, well...you know.
So whatever. IIRC I got two wrong, and had it mattered, I would have appealed. Who knows if the approved correct answers are, in fact, correct. And how did these guys get the cooperation of LSAC to get the computer to take the test? I thought that there was some security around the questions, like for instance barring dissemination, because they are recycled, or marginal variants used in subsequent tests.
As far as bar exams go, the most interesting one was NYS, which I took almost 25 years ago. What a fearsome thing it was billed as having been. I actually took Barbri courses for it, they had good materials.
Of that Barbri class--which was between 25-30 people, all of whom had graduated law school, some just that year from "excellent schools"--ONLY 2 OF US PASSED. We connected during the classes because you can tell who isn't a doofus from the questions they ask--and I must say, the computer beating 90% of that cohort probably wouldn't be that hard.
Did the computer take the multistate ethics exam? In fact, is that exam still required?
Whatever. Beating 90% of candidates on these two tests doesn't seem to me like a big deal.
With unlimited access to info, it should have aced the test and beat out 100%. Like saying "if I had answers to the test..."
Also, there are dozens of programs where you drag and drop assets and it builds html/css/javascript on the fly. You can skip the napkin. You don't even need to know a thing about html.
LSAT results are given in raw and percentile measures.
I was 99%ile--but so were the 5 other closest people I knew in law school! 4 of those others I considered bright, but one was, well...you know.
So whatever. IIRC I got two wrong, and had it mattered, I would have appealed. Who knows if the approved correct answers are, in fact, correct. And how did these guys get the cooperation of LSAC to get the computer to take the test? I thought that there was some security around the questions, like for instance barring dissemination, because they are recycled, or marginal variants used in subsequent tests.
As far as bar exams go, the most interesting one was NYS, which I took almost 25 years ago. What a fearsome thing it was billed as having been. I actually took Barbri courses for it, they had good materials.
Of that Barbri class--which was between 25-30 people, all of whom had graduated law school, some just that year from "excellent schools"--ONLY 2 OF US PASSED. We connected during the classes because you can tell who isn't a doofus from the questions they ask--and I must say, the computer beating 90% of that cohort probably wouldn't be that hard.
Did the computer take the multistate ethics exam? In fact, is that exam still required?
Whatever. Beating 90% of candidates on these two tests doesn't seem to me like a big deal.
How many 90%ile LSAT takers could also get a 4 or 5 on AP BC calc, AP Physics, AP Chemistry, do well on standard comp-sci benchmarks, and more today with no preparation.
Clearly GPT-4 is smarter than most humans.
InB4 people start telling me that 'test taking != intelligence.'
With unlimited access to info, it should have aced the test and beat out 100%. Like saying "if I had answers to the test..."
Also, there are dozens of programs where you drag and drop assets and it builds html/css/javascript on the fly. You can skip the napkin. You don't even need to know a thing about html.
It doesn't have access to unlimited info. It's trained on a large dataset but the GPT-4 model doesn't access the internet for facts while it's running in it's current implementation.
With unlimited access to info, it should have aced the test and beat out 100%. Like saying "if I had answers to the test..."
Also, there are dozens of programs where you drag and drop assets and it builds html/css/javascript on the fly. You can skip the napkin. You don't even need to know a thing about html.
It doesn't have access to unlimited info. It's trained on a large dataset but the GPT-4 model doesn't access the internet for facts while it's running in it's current implementation.
Dataset that is collected from web among other sources?
It doesn't have access to unlimited info. It's trained on a large dataset but the GPT-4 model doesn't access the internet for facts while it's running in it's current implementation.
Dataset that is collected from web among other sources?
Just like all of human intelligence?
Should humans score 100% because they are 'trained' on datasets from the web as well?
LSAT results are given in raw and percentile measures.
I was 99%ile--but so were the 5 other closest people I knew in law school! 4 of those others I considered bright, but one was, well...you know.
So whatever. IIRC I got two wrong, and had it mattered, I would have appealed. Who knows if the approved correct answers are, in fact, correct. And how did these guys get the cooperation of LSAC to get the computer to take the test? I thought that there was some security around the questions, like for instance barring dissemination, because they are recycled, or marginal variants used in subsequent tests.
As far as bar exams go, the most interesting one was NYS, which I took almost 25 years ago. What a fearsome thing it was billed as having been. I actually took Barbri courses for it, they had good materials.
Of that Barbri class--which was between 25-30 people, all of whom had graduated law school, some just that year from "excellent schools"--ONLY 2 OF US PASSED. We connected during the classes because you can tell who isn't a doofus from the questions they ask--and I must say, the computer beating 90% of that cohort probably wouldn't be that hard.
Did the computer take the multistate ethics exam? In fact, is that exam still required?
Whatever. Beating 90% of candidates on these two tests doesn't seem to me like a big deal.
How many 90%ile LSAT takers could also get a 4 or 5 on AP BC calc, AP Physics, AP Chemistry, do well on standard comp-sci benchmarks, and more today with no preparation.
Clearly GPT-4 is smarter than most humans.
InB4 people start telling me that 'test taking != intelligence.'
GPT has "preparation" though so that's a really silly thing to say. Computers have been better/faster at math for a long time. It's much harder to brute force language which is what it's essentially doing.
LSAT results are given in raw and percentile measures.
I was 99%ile--but so were the 5 other closest people I knew in law school! 4 of those others I considered bright, but one was, well...you know.
So whatever. IIRC I got two wrong, and had it mattered, I would have appealed. Who knows if the approved correct answers are, in fact, correct. And how did these guys get the cooperation of LSAC to get the computer to take the test? I thought that there was some security around the questions, like for instance barring dissemination, because they are recycled, or marginal variants used in subsequent tests.
As far as bar exams go, the most interesting one was NYS, which I took almost 25 years ago. What a fearsome thing it was billed as having been. I actually took Barbri courses for it, they had good materials.
Of that Barbri class--which was between 25-30 people, all of whom had graduated law school, some just that year from "excellent schools"--ONLY 2 OF US PASSED. We connected during the classes because you can tell who isn't a doofus from the questions they ask--and I must say, the computer beating 90% of that cohort probably wouldn't be that hard.
Did the computer take the multistate ethics exam? In fact, is that exam still required?
Whatever. Beating 90% of candidates on these two tests doesn't seem to me like a big deal.
How many 90%ile LSAT takers could also get a 4 or 5 on AP BC calc, AP Physics, AP Chemistry, do well on standard comp-sci benchmarks, and more today with no preparation.
Clearly GPT-4 is smarter than most humans.
InB4 people start telling me that 'test taking != intelligence.'
Idk, but 3 of us 6 were engineers, so there you go. The others were a philosophy PhD, a history MA, and the one I considered bottom-shelf was a liberal arts major from a private college.
So, I have no idea—but, back in the day, I suspect more than a few.
Standardized tests are easy to ace, it just takes dedication, study, and training—LOL like distance running! IMO not much intelligence required. Same with the lower echelons of the hard sciences, and math, such as AP exams and undergrad level, even now masters level.
Look at the caption vision modality generated for the discord page during the demo. I use OCR regularly for pdf parsing and this ain’t that. If you can’t see how this will be integrated with web search/ documentation lookups your thinking is short-sighted
Interesting but also sort of irrelevant, since the actual score on the bar doesn't matter in any way except inasmuch as whether you hit the passing mark for your state, or didn't. What do you call a person who only just reaches the minimum passing score on the bar exam? A lawyer. No one cares what your score was if it was high enough to be admitted to the bar.
