Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

cognitiverevolution.substack.com

131–140 of 214 posts

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#131
post #107
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t virtually all tests and exams designed to minimize ambiguity, make them fair or easy to grade and questions are designed to have a clear correct answer? This is a stark difference to most real-world human activity. Add to the fact that LLMs perform much better on questions with a lot of training data. And also add the hallucinations or more generally: they don’t ask for help or admi…

> And we’re about to plug them straight into critical business flows? Anyone who thinks this is a problem has never managed flesh-and-blood employees, and especially not minimum wage ones. LLMs don't need to be perfect. The bar they need to meet for a lot of work is just not very high. We're also about a year or two into LLMs, and their capabilities are still increasing rapidly. We don't know where their ceiling is.…

We are not “a year or two into LLMs”. To name one example, BERT is more than 5 years old.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#132
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t virtually all tests and exams designed to minimize ambiguity, make them fair or easy to grade and questions are designed to have a clear correct answer? This is a stark difference to most real-world human activity. Add to the fact that LLMs perform much better on questions with a lot of training data. And also add the hallucinations or more generally: they don’t ask for help or admi…

>aren’t virtually all tests and exams designed to minimize ambiguity, make them fair or easy to grade and questions are designed to have a clear correct answer? The Bar Exam is designed to be very hard. Almost every single question on it is a trick question of one sort or another.

Hard is different from ambiguous.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#133

> This really should not be a surprise, because even the standard-issue ChatGPT can pass the Bar Exam No, it can’t. The two things that together have sometimes gotten misrepresented that way in “game of telephone” presentations are: (1) that when tested on the multiple choice component of the multistate bar exam (not the whole bar exam), it got passing grades in two subjects (evidence and torts), not the whole multip…

That's not even the important point. ChatGPT can't do anything. It exhibits behavior that was already encapsulated into the semantics of language itself. The only behavior ChatGPT has is to generate semantic continuations from its implicit language model. Every other behavior is a feature of language, not of ChatGPT. Even if ChatGPT could exhibit a passing exam, that would be the feature of carefully curated language…

I really don’t understand the distinction you’re getting at between what ChatGPT is and what ChatGPT does.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#135
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And we’re about to plug them straight into critical business flows? Anyone who thinks this is a problem has never managed flesh-and-blood employees, and especially not minimum wage ones. LLMs don't need to be perfect. The bar they need to meet for a lot of work is just not very high. We're also about a year or two into LLMs, and their capabilities are still increasing rapidly. We don't know where their ceiling is.…

We are not “a year or two into LLMs”. To name one example, BERT is more than 5 years old.

Is 110 million parameters really a "large" language model though? Especially since the models gain novel skills as they scale up.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#136
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means they release research papers. People haven't had trouble reproducing their work. (Of course, GPT's model architecture was invented at Google anyway.)

> GPT's model architecture was invented at Google anyway No it wasn't. Transformers were invented at Google, but "architecture" when talking about neural networks means how they are arranged (and to some extent the training objective function) rather than the building blocks used.

I’m not sure what you mean. The words “transformer architecture” are standard across the literature.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#137

> This really should not be a surprise, because even the standard-issue ChatGPT can pass the Bar Exam No, it can’t. The two things that together have sometimes gotten misrepresented that way in “game of telephone” presentations are: (1) that when tested on the multiple choice component of the multistate bar exam (not the whole bar exam), it got passing grades in two subjects (evidence and torts), not the whole multip…

That's not even the important point. ChatGPT can't do anything. It exhibits behavior that was already encapsulated into the semantics of language itself. The only behavior ChatGPT has is to generate semantic continuations from its implicit language model. Every other behavior is a feature of language, not of ChatGPT. Even if ChatGPT could exhibit a passing exam, that would be the feature of carefully curated language…

it can output procedures for other systems that do something, e.g. code.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#139
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're watching a movie, and the main character picks up a can of Coca Cola while typing on a Microsoft Surface laptop, with the logos conveniently rotated toward the camera, it's obvious that Coke and Microsoft are paying the studio for product placement. AI advertising will be like this, but subtle and undetectable, so that it's nearly impossible to determine that your conversation about malfeasance by a polit…

In many jurisdictions that kind of subtle product placement is not legal.

How do you prove that it happens and is not an artifact of the training data?

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure that would fit the legal definition of fraud.

The work is getting done isn't it?

Well that's the million dollar question isn't it. The "morality" of the situation hinges upon the quality of the work. If the work was getting done without intervention, that is bad news for you, your reputation, and your necessity to the marketplace. If your work isn't getting done to standards, who is held accountable? (hint: its not the tools you're using). If the work is getting done, and you're making sure of it by writing good prompts, reviewing responses, and implementing its logic into your environment - well that's just work. There's nothing wrong with that, and if LLMs let you deliver quality work at a sustainable pace for you and your employer(s), then the work is getting done.

If we want to talk about fraud, we need to talk about employers demanding exclusivity over a human's emotions and intellect in addition to the time they pay for. Its a maniacal notion that one should have such exclusive power and influence over another human being. Its fraudulent to pretend any moral superiority over the slaver or the thief.

Fraud as defined in criminal code with respect to directly material damages. If the work is indeed getting done, there is no rational way to justify that damage took place. Conversely, if a employer hires your sibling to work 35 hours a week but lies to them about their ability to work outside of those hours, that IS fraud with the damages able to be substantiated by the loss of income. In reality, Off-Duty Work is the subject of ongoing legislation, fierce debate, and conflicting information. Here's how that looks in my home state:

>With limited exceptions, the state of Washington expressly bars employers from prohibiting an employee earning less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed. The prohibition doesn’t apply if it would: - Raise issues of safety or interfere with the reasonable and normal scheduling expectations of the employer. - Interfere with the employee’s obligations to an employer under existing law, including the common law duty of loyalty and laws preventing conflicts of interest and any corresponding policies addressing such obligations.

This is a hot issue for me personally, as I've seen employers actively, even vigorously deceive their employees solely to enrich themselves and exercise power. They target young, indigent, and disabled workers, all of whom are not with means to understand their rights or use given channels to assert them. Its a visceral injustice that hurts the most vulnerable of us the hardest.

Post reply on HN