91–100 of 151 posts
Very interesting. Until the day OpenAI has a problem in their systems and the entire world grinds to a halt. Or they put outrageous new prices. Which apparently never happened in other fields, seems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This technology has been available since then No, it hasn't lol.
How sure are you about that? The basic theories have been around since the 70s, have been proven at scale in the last decade, and the NSA has more data and compute than anybody else. I’d be shocked if they aren’t very far along in solving many problems.
Even the Manhattan project had nuclear research going on in public universities at the time.
Nothing of the sort here for the attention mechanism which underpins LLMs we know today.
Fundamental research isn't something you just throw money at and acquire. All we had back then were cleverbot and other expert systems.
Great to see this tech and the money invested in it being used to take low-paying jobs away from people with limited options, instead of something like drug discovery or cancer biology.
This assumes those people really do have no other way to contribute. I don’t believe that’s the case. Do you? I believe people can contribute in many different ways. When technology enables us to get my work output without me, that frees me up to produce other things for society.
The problem is that it is a disruption for everything because at its core it is a machine for the replication of skill and technology. A concept that has never existed prior with any other technological disruption.
"Climbing the skill ladder is going to look more like running on a treadmill at the gym. No matter how fast you run, you aren’t moving, AI is still right behind you learning everything that you can do."
from a more in depth view I wrote up here describing the rapidly shrinking innovation, disruption and adaption cycles
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now that is something I hadn't considered. Woah.
Not to sound condescending but really? How is this not immediately your mind goes? Every piece of information ever recorded can now be summarized and cross-linked efficiently. Privacy is beyond dead. Soon every authoritarian government (and Democratic ones albeit secretly) will have integrated platforms that track every single one of your movements, known contacts, internet usage, financial data, and correspondence.…
Most people don't really think about things that don't affect their day-to-day lives. This includes the specifics of how Governments might run a mass surveillance plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but there are questions about GPT-N successors. Surprisingly (to me) many people think that GPT-N will never exceed human level intelligence because it was trained on the internet. I think that argument is obviously wrong. Another is that I am sure a large chunk of people will never concede that the AI is smarter than them. Literally never, no matter how smart the bot gets. I mean, probably a lot of people t…
GPT4 is already better than most if not all humans in some metrics. I think it's a hard sell to say that nothing better than human is allowed. But the existential concern comes from supposed exponential takeoff. To me it should be easy to convince people that something 10 or 100 times faster or smarter than humans should not be allowed. Weirdly you don't see people talking about regulating autonomy which is also part…
I think it's weird that you say "I think it's a hard sell to say that nothing better than human is allowed." in combination with "To me it should be easy to convince people that something 10 or 100 times faster or smarter than humans should not be allowed."
To me, those situations are way too close to each other (human level vs. 10x 'smarter') to be able to say one is a "hard sell" and the other is "easy to convince people." I mean maybe you are exaggerating your certainty to make a point, but I don't think it's at all realistic to say that one will be hard and the other will be easy.
I don't think I see enough discussion about what this means for privacy. There was some protection in the fact that it was prohibitively expensive to get someone to listen to every single one of our phonecalls/read all our emails/etc. Worrying that this will no longer be the case.
Why do you think there was a mass surveillance of American domestic communications since forever ago, as leaked by Snowden? This technology has been available since then and can effectively summarize millions of pieces of communication.
NLP is solved, more or less. Either way, Bespoke NLP is on its way out. It's pretty funny how buried this is in the original paper.
Parts of NLP have made great progress. There are still parts of NLP that could still be improved, such as the truthiness of generated answers.
With an AI like GPT, it is quirky and amusing. Once AIs get really powerful, it becomes scary, and a lot of people who understand this field much better than I do are worried it has a good chance of being deadly. Like, potentially kill-everyone-on-earth deadly.
BTW, this is interesting. There is a lot of noise about AI carbon footprint. Now imagine how much humans would eat and fart for 20.000 work hours. It's about 10 man/years. Assuming 8h / 5d / 50 weeks schedule.
I don't think I see enough discussion about what this means for privacy. There was some protection in the fact that it was prohibitively expensive to get someone to listen to every single one of our phonecalls/read all our emails/etc. Worrying that this will no longer be the case.
Why do you think there was a mass surveillance of American domestic communications since forever ago, as leaked by Snowden? This technology has been available since then and can effectively summarize millions of pieces of communication.
From reading the paper, GPT-4 also outperformed the researchers themselves in many categories, despite the researchers being the ones who created the dataset being used to perform the comparison. In other words, the metrics are biased in the researchers’ favor — so GPT-4 would have beat them even more often (probably a majority of the time based on the numbers), if someone else had created the guidelines and golden l…