Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tree of Thoughts

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#41

Post by pupperino »

missosoup wrote: post #19
jamilton wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How typical are you thinking? I'd guess less than 10%, there's a lot of AI researchers and this is just one strain of thought.

For those 'in the know' a lot more typical than you would think. If we don't reach at least Kardashev scale 1 in the next hundred years or so, we're going to go extinct due to several now-predictable factors. And an unchained LLM trained on reality is far more capable of finding solutions to that problem than a bunch of squabbling politicians.

> And an unchained LLM trained on reality is far more capable of finding solutions to that problem than a bunch of squabbling politicians.

Not that I disagree with this statement, I don't, but this is not a silver bullet. Technology is, ultimately, operated by humans and no amount of frontier research and development can overcome collective action problems. At some point, you do have to sit down with these stupid politicians and get everyone on board. The loom was invented hundreds of years before the industrial revolution, in fact it was nearly forgotten and the designed survived due to a few happy accidents. It was only after the English Civil War and the establishment of checks on royal power that widespread adoption was possible.

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#42

Post by gremlinsinc »

hutzlibu wrote: post #29
peterldowns wrote: post #8

The author appears motivated by some... interesting... beliefs. Hard to tell if this entire thing is a joke or not. https://github.com/kyegomez/EXA#for-humanity https://blog.apac.ai/liberation-awaits EDIT: the author seems to be releasing poor implementations of recent papers in an attempt to drive attention towards an AI-related death cult.

"Hard to tell if this entire thing is a joke or not." Why the theological meta discussion at all? Is the thing he talks about actually working, is it improving AI output like he claims, or not? "that Elevates Model Reasoning by atleast 70% " I am doubtful, but I don't have the tools to investigate it on my mobile, but this is the debate I would like to read about and not potential obscure believes of the developer.

while the author sounds cookie, so did that genius who went crazy or something and built toweros, I don't know how well his implementation works but if you think about it the idea of tree if thought over the other methods does sort of make sense, that's essentially what Autogpt tries to do but with different agents.

I think if you could find a way to add better contexts and memories, and combine some LoRA to perfect a model on a specific vertical, you could essentially have a (nearly) full AGI topically that essentially is an expert and doesn't hallucinate(mostly)... maybe a 2 to 3x multiplier on gpt4. I mean I'm a year it'll probably be even more insane what's available.

look at the transition of Midjourney v1 to v5 in a single year.

It's been a wild year for ai. the experiment where they hooked a bunch of Sims up together with ai, also used something similar to this I think, in creating thought chains from multiple agents.

Tldr: crazy or not, the idea of using a branching system to get better results does make some sense, so it's not completely bunk or anything, IMHO. At least the concept, can't speak for this specific implementation.

Edit: I guess, I skimmed and misread the room. I was thinking this guy was part of the original paper and implementation. he's not, which does award him more skepticism etc. My bad.

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#43

Post by turtleyacht »

peterldowns wrote: post #8

The author appears motivated by some... interesting... beliefs. Hard to tell if this entire thing is a joke or not. https://github.com/kyegomez/EXA#for-humanity https://blog.apac.ai/liberation-awaits EDIT: the author seems to be releasing poor implementations of recent papers in an attempt to drive attention towards an AI-related death cult.

> grim darkness of the far future

That's a reference to Warhammer 40k, a popular miniatures wargame from Games Workshop. Their quote is

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war.

It could be kind of satirical, if only to link recent events with the ideas of

  * future technology as impossibly obscure
  * a psionic emperor who consumes minds
    to protect humankind from cosmic
    terrors
  * tech-priests, who maintain ancient tech
  * "machine spirits," who must be appeased

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#44

Post by pizza »

peterldowns wrote: post #8

The author appears motivated by some... interesting... beliefs. Hard to tell if this entire thing is a joke or not. https://github.com/kyegomez/EXA#for-humanity https://blog.apac.ai/liberation-awaits EDIT: the author seems to be releasing poor implementations of recent papers in an attempt to drive attention towards an AI-related death cult.

What, no mention of Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point? ;) lol. as in - this is isomorphic to the ontology of “technology as the second coming of Christ”

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#45

Post by GreedClarifies »

sdwr wrote: post #32
GreedClarifies wrote: post #13

This path feels correct to me. It feel like what we do as humans and seems like a reasonable way to start to construct "mode 2" thinking. IDK if our current models have enough of "mode 1" to power this system. It's also plausible that our current "mode 1" systems are more than powerful enough and that inference speed (and thus the size/depth of the tree that can be explored) will be the most important factor. I hope…

Yeah looks very promising. Naively, it multiplies computation time by a factor of 20x though? If they are taking 5x samples per step, and multiple steps per problem. https://imgur.com/a/VbpQZRm As this gets explored further, I believe we will start finding out why human minds are constructed the way they are, from the practical/necessity direction. Seems like the next step is farming out subtasks to smaller models, a…

I’m sympathetic to the idea of new types of specialized models to assist in this effort. We’re using our one hammer for all problems.

In particular, it jumps out that a “ranking model” (different, I think from current ranking models) to judge which paths to take and which nodes to trim would make some level of sense.

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#46

Post by sdwr »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #36
sdwr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's that self-awareness shit! We superintelligent now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdSIngO0ivk

Yeah maybe we should hook this up to a chat interface, and let a human take the place of the LLM.

That would be neat. Flip the script, have an AI manager instead of AI assistant. It could:

- keep track of todo items

- assist with progress

- check in on mental + emotional state

and down the road

- keep track of state over time

- give feedback/make observations

The paradigm shift is having it contact us, instead of the other way around. The ToT model has 1 additional parameter on top of the LLM - probability of success. What would the parameters be for a more open-ended conversation?

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#47

Post by rahimnathwani »

sdwr wrote: post #46
rahimnathwani wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah maybe we should hook this up to a chat interface, and let a human take the place of the LLM.

That would be neat. Flip the script, have an AI manager instead of AI assistant. It could: - keep track of todo items - assist with progress - check in on mental + emotional state and down the road - keep track of state over time - give feedback/make observations The paradigm shift is having it contact us, instead of the other way around. The ToT model has 1 additional parameter on top of the LLM - probability of suc…

"What would the parameters be for a more open-ended conversation"

Engagement! Just like social media!

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#48

Post by alephxyz »

peterldowns wrote: post #8

The author appears motivated by some... interesting... beliefs. Hard to tell if this entire thing is a joke or not. https://github.com/kyegomez/EXA#for-humanity https://blog.apac.ai/liberation-awaits EDIT: the author seems to be releasing poor implementations of recent papers in an attempt to drive attention towards an AI-related death cult.

Yep, I fell for it this week. Spent an hour fixing typos and minor bugs in their code before taking a step back and realising most of it was flawed.

What I believe they're doing is feeding papers to a LLM as soon as they come out in order to get a repo they can advertise. Once someone releases a working implementation they just copy it over.

I was able to generate almost identical code to what they released by giving chatgpt pseudocode copied verbatim from the original paper.

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#49

Post by jxy »

peterldowns wrote: post #8

The author appears motivated by some... interesting... beliefs. Hard to tell if this entire thing is a joke or not. https://github.com/kyegomez/EXA#for-humanity https://blog.apac.ai/liberation-awaits EDIT: the author seems to be releasing poor implementations of recent papers in an attempt to drive attention towards an AI-related death cult.

Glory to Mankind

Re: Tree of Thoughts

#50

Post by nate »

startupsfail wrote: post #12

Checking, if GPT could be improved by running it multiple times is a good idea. The answer to that is - yes, but it is: costly, slow, there is node collapse, it impacts context length, it injects biases.

I constantly ask chatGPT: "are you sure?" to it's replies, and it almost always corrects a mistake it made that I've spotted.
Post reply on HN