Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4

How can we measure the intelligence of an LLM that has been trained on an unknown but extremely vast corpus of web-text data? The standard approach in machine learning is to evaluate the system on a set of standard benchmark datasets, ensuring that they are independent of the training data and that they cover a range of tasks and domains. This approach is designed to separate true learning from mere memorization, and is backed up by a rich theoretical framework [shalev2014understanding, mohri2018foundations]. However, this methodology is not necessarily suitable for studying GPT-4, for two reasons. First, since we do not have access to the full details of its vast training data, we have to assume that it has potentially seen every existing benchmark, or at least some similar data. For example, it seems like GPT-4 knows the recently proposed BIG-bench [srivastava2022beyond] (at least GPT-4 knows the canary GUID from BIG-bench). Of course, OpenAI themselves have access to all the training details, and thus their report [gpt4] contains a lot of detailed benchmark results. Nevertheless, the second reason for going beyond traditional benchmarks is probably more significant: One of the key aspects of GPT-4’s intelligence is its generality, the ability to seemingly understand and connect any topic, and to perform tasks that go beyond the typical scope of narrow AI systems. Some of GPT-4’s most impressive performance are on tasks that do not admit a single solution, such as writing a graphic user interface (GUI) or helping a human brainstorm on some work-related problem. Benchmarks for such generative or interactive tasks can be designed too, but the metric of evaluation becomes a challenge (see e.g., [NEURIPS2021_260c2432] for some recent progress on this active research area in NLP). We note that criticisms of the standard approach to measure AI systems were also made in [chollet2019measure], where a new benchmark was proposed to evaluate general intelligence. We do not test GPT-4 on the latter benchmark for the reasons previously mentioned, as well as the fact that the benchmark is visual in nature and thus more appropriate for the multimodal version of GPT-4 described in [gpt4].

To overcome the limitations described above, we propose here a different approach to studying GPT-4 which is closer to traditional psychology rather than machine learning, leveraging human creativity and curiosity. We aim to generate novel and difficult tasks and questions that convincingly demonstrate that GPT-4 goes far beyond memorization, and that it has a deep and flexible understanding of concepts, skills, and domains (a somewhat similar approach was also proposed in [collins2022structured]). We also aim to probe GPT-4’s responses and behaviors, to verify its consistency, coherence, and correctness, and to uncover its limitations and biases. We acknowledge that this approach is somewhat subjective and informal, and that it may not satisfy the rigorous standards of scientific evaluation. However, we believe that it is a useful and necessary first step to appreciate the remarkable capabilities and challenges of GPT-4, and that such a first step opens up new opportunities for developing more formal and comprehensive methods for testing and analyzing AI systems with more general intelligence.

To illustrate our approach to assessing GPT-4’s intelligence, let us consider the first two example interactions with GPT-4 that we have in Figure 1.1. The first example is asking GPT-4 to write a proof of the infinitude of primes in the form of a poem. This is a challenging task that requires combining elementary mathematical reasoning, poetic expression, and natural language generation. The second example is asking GPT-4 to draw a unicorn in TiKZ. This is another challenging task that requires combining visual imagination and coding skills. In both cases, GPT-4 produces impressive outputs that are far superior to those of ChatGPT, a previous state-of-the-art LLM, and at least comparable (if not superior) to what a human would do.

However, impressive outputs are not enough to convince us that GPT-4 has truly mastered these tasks. We need to probe further, to rule out the possibility that GPT-4 is simply memorizing or copying some existing data. For the poem, we can vary the question slightly, and ask GPT-4 to write a proof of the same theorem in the style of Shakespeare, see Figure 2.2, or ask for a different combination such as writing a platonic dialogue about language models, see Figure 1.6. One can see that GPT-4 easily adapts to different styles and produce impressive outputs, indicating that it has a flexible and general understanding of the concepts involved. For the unicorn, we can modify the code slightly, and ask GPT-4 to fix it or improve it. For example, we can remove the horn, apply some random transformations to the coordinates, and ask GPT-4 to add back the horn to the unicorn (we also carefully removed any textual information in the code, such as comments). As shown in Figure 1.4, GPT-4 can correctly identify the location of the head, draw a horn, and attach it to the head, indicating that it can comprehend and manipulate code, as well as infer and generate visual features, based on a natural language description.

These examples show how we can use human creativity and curiosity to generate novel and difficult questions, and to probe GPT-4’s responses and behaviors, to assess its intelligence. In the rest of the paper, we organize our study of GPT-4 around use cases, covering a variety of domains and tasks, and highlighting GPT-4’s strengths and weaknesses. We describe those next.

We execute the approach outlined above on a few selected topics to explore the reasoning, planning, and learning aptitudes of GPT-4.

A question that might be lingering on many readers’ mind is whether GPT-4 truly understands all these concepts, or whether it just became much better than previous models at improvising on the fly, without any real or deep understanding. We hope that after reading this paper the question should almost flip, and that one might be left wondering how much more there is to true understanding than on-the-fly improvisation. Can one reasonably say that a system that passes exams for software engineering candidates (Figure 4) is not really intelligent? Perhaps the only real test of understanding is whether one can produce new knowledge, such as proving new mathematical theorems, a feat that currently remains out of reach for LLMs.

To showcase the model’s remarkable integrative ability, we start with several examples that require generating text and code in a way that combines knowledge or skills from multiple disciplines. We deliberately picked combinations of domains that the training data would rarely include, such as literature and mathematics or programming and art.

These examples suggest that GPT-4 has not only learned some general principles and patterns of different domains and styles but can also synthesize them in creative and novel ways. These interdisciplinary skills are not unique to GPT-4. ChatGPT can also produce answers that show some understanding of the task and the domains involved (see Figures 2.2, , ), but they are often incomplete and, arguably, considerably less creative. For example, in Figure 2.3, GPT-4 outperforms ChatGPT in several aspects as it correctly personalizes the letter according to the referee (Gandhi), the recipient (his wife), the candidate (Electron), and the job (US president). We do not claim to have a precise method for evaluating the results of these tasks or a rigorous comparison between the two models, but we want to give the reader a sense of how the two models differ (note that we also ask GPT-4 directly to evaluate the difference, see Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3).

Next, we explore how GPT-4 can generate and identify objects in different modalities, such as vector graphics, 3D scenes, and music. We show that GPT-4 can understand and manipulate multi-modal information despite a text-only input/output.

When prompting the model to generate images of objects such as a cat, a truck or a letter in the alphabet using Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), the model produces code which usually compiles to rather detailed and identifiable images (Figure 2.4). See Appendix  for the rerun of various examples by ChatGPT.

The data on which the model was trained also contains musical information encoded as ABC notation. This is a system that uses letters, numbers and symbols to represent musical pitches, durations, chords and other elements in a compact and readable way. We are interested in exploring how well the model has acquired musical skills from this exposure, such as composing new melodies, transforming existing ones, and understanding musical patterns and structures.

When instructed to generate a short tune (Figure 2.9), and the model was able to produce valid ABC notation. The tune had a clear structure, the time signature was consistent between bars and the notes followed increasing and decreasing patterns. The tune also used a consistent set of notes within the melody, and the rhythm had a repetitive pattern. However, the model did not seem to obtain the skill of understanding harmony. In fact, consecutive notes in the generated tunes are almost always adjacent to each other (namely, the note following C will almost typically be either B or D), and testing on 10 generated tunes, we were not able to extract any clear chords or arpeggios.

We then asked the model to describe the tune in musical terms. It was able to successfully give a technical description of the structure in terms of repetitions, the rising or descending parts of the melody and to some extent the rhythm. However, it seems that the descriptions of the harmony and chords are not consistent with the notes (in fact, it refers to sequences of adjacent notes, which do not form valid chords, as arpeggios).

We then asked the model to manipulate the melody in two ways. First, we instructed to change a certain rising sequence to a descending one, which it did successfully. Then we asked the model to convert the tune to a duet adding a bass voice. The model successfully extends the ABC notation with a second staff which has compatible rhythm and is played on a lower octave, however there is a lack of harmony between the two voices.

In summary, the model was able to produce valid tunes in ABC notation and, to some extent, explain and manipulate their structure. However, we could not get the model to produce any nontrivial form of harmony. It should be noted that ABC notation is not a very widely used format, and in fact the model was not able to produce even the most well-known tunes in ABC notation (such as Ode to Joy, Für Elise or Greensleeves, all of which are abundant online in that format), nor was it able to recognize these tunes.

As explained in the Introduction (see footnote 1 for example) our experiments were run on an early version of GPT-4. In particular all quantitative results will be different on the final version of GPT-4, although the general trends remain the same. We provide numbers here for illustration purpose only, the definitive benchmark results can be found in OpenAI’s technical report [gpt4].