Live data from Hacker News

Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

davidgerard.co.uk

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#31
post #27
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't "proving to them that the LLMs are far from perfect" be accomplished by showing a few examples of LLM hallucination? This does not seem very difficult.

A significant portion of the American population doesn't accept the results of the 2020 election. No amount of proof will change their mind. Everyone alive has been exposed for decades to both sci-fi tropes and media hype around AI, and the ideas that stick in their heads tend to be those repeated and reinforced by media, not by direct experience. When LLMs get rolled out to everyday users who aren't experts it will…

>A significant portion of the American population doesn't accept the results of the 2020 election. No amount of proof will change their mind.

This is different. There's obvious bias here. Many people don't want to believe the election is legit because of team and group mentality. People tend to believe what they want. Additionally, people can't "see" the results. It can't fully be proven because there is always a layer of indirection here where you need to trust a potential compromised source. From the perspective of the public what happened during the election can only be ascertained through a network of indirect sources so it's convenient for people to assume any one of those sources is compromised in a way such that the conclusion is closer to the one they desire.

For chatGPT seeing is believing. You can see the thing hallucinates right in front of your freaking eyes. There is no layer of indirection. There is no room for someone to lie to themselves. Additionally, the bias for chatGPT is actually in the other direction. Nobody wants to believe that an AI can trivialize their skill set. People would rather believe chatGPT is garbage because that is what they prefer to believe.

In fact I would argue this exact bias is the thing effecting many people right now. The same type of biases that make people believe the trump votes are rigged are the same type of biases that prevent people from even considering the fact that an LLM is more than just a stochastic parrot. They don't want to believe it... So they don't.

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#32
post #3

It doesn’t need to be AGI to be dangerous. As argument, just consider how the next elections will be. GPT is at least a cannon for fake news. A fake News machine gun

But then the problem is not GPT/DumbAI, it is it's users.

Alternatively, what you have said is true of all tools: a hammer does not need to be conscious to be dangerous, it just needs to be put in the hands of bad actors; well yeah, that is true of everything all the time...

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#33
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant portion of the American population doesn't accept the results of the 2020 election. No amount of proof will change their mind. Everyone alive has been exposed for decades to both sci-fi tropes and media hype around AI, and the ideas that stick in their heads tend to be those repeated and reinforced by media, not by direct experience. When LLMs get rolled out to everyday users who aren't experts it will…

>A significant portion of the American population doesn't accept the results of the 2020 election. No amount of proof will change their mind. This is different. There's obvious bias here. Many people don't want to believe the election is legit because of team and group mentality. People tend to believe what they want. Additionally, people can't "see" the results. It can't fully be proven because there is always a lay…

> There is no layer of indirection. There is no room for someone to lie to themselves. Additionally, the bias for chatGPT is actually in the other direction.

Bing search and customer service chatbots, for example, give a layer of indirection. Spam emails, LLM-generated legal briefs and term papers have indirection when the recipients (judge, professor) don't interact directly with the LLM. Since interacting directly with ChatGPT takes some skill and doesn't seem immediately useful most people will interact with it through things like search engines and friendly chat widgets and word processor plugins, just like programmers already interact with an LLM indirectly with Github Copilot.

> Nobody wants to believe that an AI can trivialize their skill set. People would rather believe chatGPT is garbage because that is what they prefer to believe.

They may not want to believe it, but you must have seen the numerous articles -- many of them posted on HN -- about exactly that happening. Not a day goes by that HN doesn't get multiple posts expressing fear and worry about "AI" taking over their job soon, or making the job redundant. And people may simultaneously believe "ChatGPT is garbage" and worry that they will lose their job, or get killed by a robot drone.

I argue that too many people already have a bias towards believing ChatGPT/LLMs equals AGI, because the media has primed them to believe that. The term "artificial intelligence" itself gives it away. If no one used "AI" to refer to ChatGPT et al. and instead called them large language models that might help people realistically evaluate LLMs as tools rather than as a true artificial intelligence. The term AI has been applied to so many ideas, fantasies, experiments, and now products that it means everything and nothing, and every individual can and will interpret that according to their own biases and knowledge. Of course "AI" sells a lot better than "LLMs" and we're seeing the self-serving hype in full-swing already, as numerous companies and VCs try to capitalize and recoup their losses from the last hype cycles that people got wise to (crypto) or never got interested in to begin with (Web3 and metaverse).

I'm old enough to remember when scientists successfully cloned a sheep, and immediately the media, popular and specialized, cranked out story after story about how cloning would reshape humanity in just a few years. We were told that human clones were just around the corner, with all the attendant hand-wringing. Of course that never happened, but I wouldn't find it all surprising to poll random people and find that they believe human cloning happens all the time, because the hype didn't get followed by a correction or apology.

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#34
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think you're superior because you're in software or IT or you've done ML in different contexts? I'm here to tell you, that unless you're not a layman and actually build LLMs, you're not because all your info is from the same place as all the other people outside of tech. You don't need expertise building LLMs to interpret the hype and see who has financial interests in promoting non-existent technology, call…

>Some experts, and lots of people who have not themselves built LLMs, such as Elon Musk, Yuval Noah Harari, Steve Wozniak. Never denied this. I did not intentionally hide this. I will say your statement did not mention that one of the signers is the premier expert. The person who reignited interest in neural networks, Geoffrey Hinton. It's not "some" experts. It's many many preeminent experts. It's more accurate to s…

> Nobody fully understands these networks. Not even the people who build them. The "experts" admit this.

That's repeated a lot but it's not entirely accurate. No one can explain how an LLM gives the answers it does (not even the LLM). LLMs have a vast search space of tokens and use probabilities to make their responses non-deterministic. But the people who build and train LLMs do know how they work -- obviously since quite a few people know how to make one. By analogy, if I give a pile of Legos to a six-year-old I don't know what they will make, though I do know the constraints and limits (imposed by how Legos work and what was in the pile). It's not correct to say "I don't understand how Legos work" when I really mean "I can't predict what a six-year-old will make from a pile of Legos."

> You misunderstand how trivial it is to use this technology and figure out the limitations ... Hallucinations aren't technical level concepts.

I get that. But when I have discussed ChatGPT hallucinations, with examples from my own chats, I'm surprised when people don't even recognize the hallucinations until I point them out. Anecdotally people seem to defend the "AI" by accusing me of misleading it, or giving unclear information. They have anthropomorphized and then want to impose human notions of fairness, give the "AI" the benefit of the doubt even when they know that a person would have not made the mistake, or answered "I don't know" rather than confidently make stuff up like ChatGPT will. I think people don't believe computers can lie or make a mistake -- they imagine an intelligence like Mr. Spock at the other end, not a stochastic parrot.

I got ChatGPT to tell me -- in its confident and authoritative tone -- that no even number is also evenly divisible by 3. When I gave it contradictory examples -- 6, 12, 24 -- it then apologized but maintained that no even number was divisible by both 3 and 5 (um, 30, 60, 90...). I was just trying to get it to solve FizzBuzz with some variations. I could feed my younger children that same misinformation and they wouldn't question it. I could tell my parents that their Alexa listens to everything they say and records it forever on a big disk on a satellite in orbit, and they would believe me. Elon Musk can tell the world Teslas can drive from SF to New York without human intervention and get a whole TEDTalk audience and media "experts" to believe him. P.T. Barnum had some quips about that tendency.

> Find one guy on this entire thread who is honestly fooled by chatGPT and I'll concede to your argument. If you can't find even one guy... Then if you're rational you'll see that my argument is true: nearly no one is fooled by chatGPT.

That's not proof of anything. Maybe no one will chime in on this thread but you can easily find posts and comments on HN with people claiming LLMs are sentient. A Google researcher said that publicly (he got fired), and much discussion took place here. If I was more interested in the topic I could poll people, but I'm pretty sure I would find that quite a lot of people think current "AI" (LLMs like ChatGPT) are sentient, or they will be in the next couple of years. And then I could ask them what "sentient" means and never stop face-palming.

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#35

>People’s susceptibility to anthropomorphizing an even slightly convincing computer program has been known since ELIZA, one of the first chatbots, in 1966. It’s called the ELIZA effect. I'm tired of these arguments. Very very few people are anthropomorphizing chatgpt.. very few. The majority of people both technical and non technical who have played with chatGPT in a non trivial way are aware of the chatbots limitati…

It is ironic that you just anthropomorphized it yourself by using "it forgets".

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Some experts, and lots of people who have not themselves built LLMs, such as Elon Musk, Yuval Noah Harari, Steve Wozniak. Never denied this. I did not intentionally hide this. I will say your statement did not mention that one of the signers is the premier expert. The person who reignited interest in neural networks, Geoffrey Hinton. It's not "some" experts. It's many many preeminent experts. It's more accurate to s…

> Nobody fully understands these networks. Not even the people who build them. The "experts" admit this. That's repeated a lot but it's not entirely accurate. No one can explain how an LLM gives the answers it does (not even the LLM). LLMs have a vast search space of tokens and use probabilities to make their responses non-deterministic. But the people who build and train LLMs do know how they work -- obviously since…

Especially as the erroneous conflation of "sentient" and "sapient" has strong science-fiction roots, too. I've seen them often wrongly conflated in science-fiction stories, not so much outwith science-fiction. As I have mentioned before, my suspicion is that decades ago some influential science-fiction author or editor made this error, and it stuck.

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#37
post #12

I agree that a lot of crypto grifter seem to be moving on to AI. But it seems like the author is doing the same thing. Since no one is interested in reading his criticism of cypto anymore, he is now moving on to AI. Legend.

co-author here: lol I assure you we have no wish to continue on this AI path. OTOH, we both got new patrons all of a sudden. And there's a similar article to write about quantum computing grift, with massive misselling of systems that might one day be able to factor numbers as high as 35.

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#38
Bad writing,.combining two independent and unrelated things and not knowing what and how LLM and a lot more works.

Funny this peace could have been written by chatgpt with the same or better quality.

Only good thing is that crypto VC is now starting to invest in something worthy

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#39

What is this guys tech credentials

co-author here: I'm a sysadmin by day, haven't worked anywhere near AI.

But our main applicable experience is as finance journalists writing up crypto grifters. And it's not only the same grift, but literally a lot of the same grifters.

It's never about the technology, it's always about the money.

Re: Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

#40

>People’s susceptibility to anthropomorphizing an even slightly convincing computer program has been known since ELIZA, one of the first chatbots, in 1966. It’s called the ELIZA effect. I'm tired of these arguments. Very very few people are anthropomorphizing chatgpt.. very few. The majority of people both technical and non technical who have played with chatGPT in a non trivial way are aware of the chatbots limitati…

co-author here: I warn you, I've got a paperclip and I'm not afraid to use it.
Post reply on HN