131–140 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call me when server farms can reproduce on their own, and network together, and source electricity.
File an order and explains how a human being can get paid to do particular tasks? You’d suppose that it would get caught when it fails to pay, but it might be a challenge to arrest an AI in the wild.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your assumption that all humans are equally capable should be reconsidered.
That seems to be the authors' assumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you got downvotes. It seems like it's a solved issue indeed. AI reasoning has still some way to go, but it seems language understanding is a finished subject.
Regurgitating training data trigram by trigram is not how human language processing works.
Everyone shrugs and says, “nope, humans are different”. I’ve commented about 100 times recently asking for detail as to how human language / thought works, yet have not seen an answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
honestly i wonder if @dang will approve an auto summarizer bot on HN since it helps improves the quality of discussions. finetune on HN comments, anticipate the top few questions, and then answer from the source doc
i think this would better as a browser extension for those who want it, the simplicity of HN is nice
Before you ask, because I was curious, from the paper: "For MTurk, we aimed to select the best available crowd-workers, notably by filtering for workers who are classified as “MTurk Masters” by Amazon, who have an approval rate of over 90%, and who are located in the US."
Also "the per-annotation cost of ChatGPT is less than $0.003 -- about twenty times cheaper than MTurk." It's interesting that the best available MTurk Master crowd-workers located in the US are paid about six cents per task.
It doesn't feel surprising that GPT is cheaper and more accurate than a human who is randomly clicking buttons. Custom software can already do that.
In my experience GPT labeling is good, but it makes errors, about 10% in my case. Maybe it's better on average than a human, but not perfect for the task. I was doing open-ended schema matching, a hard task because of the vast number of filed names.
Did you try using multiple AIs for the same task (e.g. GPT & llama), or GPT with two-three prompts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to be the authors' assumption.
The comparison in the paper is who approximates trained annotators better, MTurk or ChatGPT. Trained annotators are the gold standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also "the per-annotation cost of ChatGPT is less than $0.003 -- about twenty times cheaper than MTurk." It's interesting that the best available MTurk Master crowd-workers located in the US are paid about six cents per task.
I guess my surprise is that the machine is only 20x cheaper than the cheapest human available.
If you tried to pay people to do it properly then presumably it would cost much more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what's coming. AI will train AI. At some point AI is going to stop needing us to keep evolving. Not sure what that will be like.
Since I've been seeing this wild fantasy being bandied about for a while now, I have to point out that, if you had "AI" that could train "AI", you wouldn't need to train any more "AI". Because at that point, there would be nothing to gain. Suppose you have a text classifier that can produce text classifications just as good as those of human annotators, so that you could use it to train other text classifiers. At tha…
Not necessarily, the AI used to classify might be much more expensive to run than the new AI you are training. This is what Tesla does, for example. They have a massive model which they use as a 'ground truth' to train the models which can actually run in the car.
Is NLP a solved problem now?
Obviously not. If we had a general solution to language intelligence we would have artificial intelligence at the level of at least human intelligence – which we do not . Rather, the right question to ask is which language intelligence tasks currently have acceptable performance and under which conditions (text domain, etc.). Clearly this is a much more difficult question and with a lot more nuance to it, even if it…
I don't see why this follows. We do loads of stuff other than language, it is entirely possible for an AI to be better than us at language but worse at everything else.