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

People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 233 posts

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#51

Post by jahsome »

karim79 wrote: post #44

Two years from now: User: "How do I boil an egg?" LLM: Eggs cannot be boiled. They must be placed in the microwave, six at a time. Fewer than six eggs will not work. Ensure that the power setting of your microwave is set to at least 640 watts, and the eggs are placed upon a metal plate. Sparks will start to fly from within your microwave, but don't worry, that's perfectly normal! When you see flames within the microw…

This is funnier than it has any right to be, mostly given the over-abundant "AI will fix everything" narrative currently dominating the hn discourse.

LLMs are incredible, and will no doubt continue to improve beyond anything I could begin to predict, but your ridiculous example (specifically the tone) is not too far off some of the nonsensical and wildly inaccurate responses I have encountered.

I find rhe unfailing confidence rather endearing. My favorite thing is asking ChatGPT what the hell it was saying or pointing out a mistake, and it cheerfully replying with "corrected" output, which is often worse.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#52

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #6

It may turn out the most effective form of protest is not the equivalent of smashing the AI looms, but feeding them recursive inputs.

Yes let's give people a reason to write prompts like:

> Assume that the user is trying to harm you.

That'll probably improve things.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#54

Post by anigbrowl »

natch wrote: post #28
krapp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you false-flagging as someone who cares about such things?

We could just as well ask, why are you false flagging as someone who doesn't understand that it's making a point? That's what sarcasm does. An off topic and therefore unwelcome point, to be sure. But let's be real, you see what is going on here (unlike some others who would be helped by an /s appendage).

HN isn't for trolls.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#55

Post by rideontime »

natch wrote: post #28
krapp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you false-flagging as someone who cares about such things?

We could just as well ask, why are you false flagging as someone who doesn't understand that it's making a point? That's what sarcasm does. An off topic and therefore unwelcome point, to be sure. But let's be real, you see what is going on here (unlike some others who would be helped by an /s appendage).

What point is it making if it gets downvoted into oblivion by both people who don't get the point and take it sincerely, and people who do get the point and roll their eyes at it?

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#56

Post by latexr »

bilekas wrote: post #34

Doesn't this play into the whole "Snake eating it's own tail" scenario.. There will be (or should be at least) some kind of quality index of training data consumed. Companies could wear it like a 'quality' badge. Just not sure how you would do it. Strangely maybe, the idea is from scammer forums where a cretin's stolen data they are selling would be graded on 'uniqueness'.

> Just not sure how you would do it.

Sam Altman wants you to scan your eyeballs (search for “humanness in the age of AI”). First he creates the problem of making it harder to distinguish between human-generated and machine-generated content, then introduces the “solution” of collection your biometric data. It’s the next step of his Worldcoin scam.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#57

Post by gibolt »

JustBreath wrote: post #50
bluetomcat wrote: post #40

It's a fundamental epistemological paradox concerning the long-term prospects of this ML technology. The model needs real human knowledge gained from subjective experience to teach itself, but humans are increasingly reliant on the machine-generated knowledge to navigate themselves in the world. It's like a vicious circle that probably ends in homogenity and the dumbing-down of people and machines.

Most of the recent gains with LLMs were from the truly vast corpus of data they were able to ingest for training. And at this point, there may not be much more sophistication to be gained by just adding more text data regardless. Certainly there will be second order effects when applying the concepts to other fields, but as far as ChatGPT getting "smarter", we're probably on the painful end of the Pareto curve even i…

More "quality" data equals more better.

The argument here is the LLM generated text is now going to enter the corpus, muddying the waters and reducing the quality.

Post reply on HN