Live data from Hacker News

Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

economist.com

151–160 of 354 posts

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. Everything is deterministic above the quantum level, and it's possible that quantum non-determinism is the result of deterministic processes we can't see. Lots of deterministic processes (like PRNGs) look random from the outside - that's what chaos theory is about. I think it's likely that everything in the universe is deterministic.

The problem is that any hidden variable resolving quantum indeterminacy would have to be non -local, i.e. able to propagate itself faster than light, which would also violate our understanding of the world quite a bit.

> which would also violate our understanding of the world quite a bit.

Are we discussing science or public relations?

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#152

Isn't the fundamental problem that LLM's don't actually understand anything (as greater concepts), but rather operate as complex probability machines? My 2 month active experience with ChatGPT-4 gave me the following takeaways: - when it's right, it's amazing; and when you, the operator, can recognize the niche use case where it performs really well, it can be a game-changer (although you could have programmed a tool…

Very well said, this has been precisely my experience too

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#153

As if anyone is good at predicting the future. Please can we stop acting like expertise equates to fortune telling capabilities?! Nobody has any clue what a 1000x sized GPT model could do, and anybody who makes strong claims is a charlatan. In this age of paranoid AI risk cultists we need to cultivate humility and calm, a willingness to follow data rather than beliefs and predictions.

> paranoid AI risk cultists

There is broad consensus among experts that a hypothetical strong AI would be a threat, and potentially an existential threat, to humanity. While not everyone agrees on details like timeline and alignment issues, the idea that AI is dangerous is not a cult, it's the mainstream view.

Climate scientists cannot "predict the future" with certainty either. That doesn't mean their warnings are hot air, and neither are the warnings from AI safety experts. It seems like the educated masses are currently in denial about AI in much the same way as the uneducated masses have been in denial about climate change for a while.

Risk assessment doesn't require understanding. I don't have to understand how a venomous snake senses prey in order to know that the snake is a potential threat to me. In fact, the less I know about the snake, the higher the assessed risk should be, since the uncertainty is higher as well.

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#154
post #111

Isn't the fundamental problem that LLM's don't actually understand anything (as greater concepts), but rather operate as complex probability machines? My 2 month active experience with ChatGPT-4 gave me the following takeaways: - when it's right, it's amazing; and when you, the operator, can recognize the niche use case where it performs really well, it can be a game-changer (although you could have programmed a tool…

I’m not convinced the language part of my brain isn’t just a complex probability machine, just with different trade-offs.

Yes. But modeling language doesn’t mean you’ve made a good model of anything else. Now, I think LLMs have incidentally modeled a ton of small simple systems very well. But those systems, and the ones LLMs haven’t mastered, would be better off modeled with models built for those systems specifically.

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#155
post #11

We need a way to make tight little specialist models that don't hallucinate and reliably report when they don't know. Trying to cram all of the web into a LLM is a dead end.

> and reliably report when they don't know. Then we need a new system, because LMs, no matter if they are large or not, cannot do that, for a very simple reason: A LM doesn't understand "truthfulness". It has no concept of a sequence being true or not, only of a sequence being probable. And that probability cannot work as a standin for truthfulness, because the LM doesn't produce improbable sequences to begin with...…

> A LM doesn't understand "truthfulness". It has no concept of a sequence being true or not, only of a sequence being probable.

I claim that the human brain doesn't understand "truthfulness" either. It merely creates the impression that understanding is taking place, by adapting to social and environmental pressures. The brain has no "concepts" at all, it just generates output based on its input, its internal wiring, and a variety of essentially random factors, quite analogous to how LLMs operate.

Do you have any evidence that contradicts that claim?

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is the goal AI, or a nice database front end, to reference facts? The latter given the kind of products that are currently being built with it. You don't want your code completion or news aggregator to hallucinate for the same reason you don't want your wrench to hallucinate, it's a tool. And as for hallucinations, that's a PR friendly misnomer for "it made **** up". Using the same phrase doesn't mean it has functio…

"hallucination" just means the AI produced incorrect information. Humans produce incorrect information all the time. But we know we are fallible. I've seen lots of people treating these AIs as infallible, that they can't get anything wrong. That's a huge problem with people, not the AI. Obviously it's worth it to try and eliminate the incorrect information, but what grand-op is saying is we don't want to do that if i…

I think AI hallucinations are more than just incorrect information. They're incorrect information coupled with an air of certitude. Sometimes with a whole backstory. And often oblivious to any inherent contradictions. It's like, if you ask a random person what years Lyndon B Johnson was president, they might say something like 1964-1968, shrugging with a bit of uncertainty. And both of those years would be incorrect but close. Whereas an AI (if hallucinating) would say something like Lyndon B Johnson was president from April 15, 1865 – March 4, 1869, after the shooting of John F. Kennedy in Ford's theater. The dates are precise but completely wrong, as are the accompanying details. Then if you ask the AI when John F. Kennedy died, it might correctly respond November 22, 1963, in Dallas, TX, totally unaware how this information doesn't match with the erroneous information it gave earlier.

I've been thinking there's some parallels between how AIs hallucinate and how human toddlers do. If you ask a toddler/young child a question about a fact they don't know, they will usually say, "iuno" (even when they should), but depending on the child and the circumstances, they will sometimes just make up a story on the spot and sound as if they believe it. "Who invented ice cream?" "Santa Claus! Mommy left him milk and cookies and he turned it into ice cream." It doesn't make any real sense but it seems facially plausible in their universe.

But somewhere between first learning to speak and around 7ish, kids become markedly more accurate how they model the world, and their responses become correspondingly less fanciful. And they continue to improve beyond that point.

So how are kids doing what LLMs are currently incapable of? How do we teach ourselves not to hallucinate? Or do we, really? I mean, if I tell myself I'm going to make it through the intersection before the light turns red, but I end up running the red light, was I just mistaken, or was that a self-delusion, i.e., a mini-hallucination of sorts? Probably a self-driving car would be less likely to make that category of mistake, so maybe I shouldn't be so smug about being grounded in reality.

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#157
post #147

As if anyone is good at predicting the future. Please can we stop acting like expertise equates to fortune telling capabilities?! Nobody has any clue what a 1000x sized GPT model could do, and anybody who makes strong claims is a charlatan. In this age of paranoid AI risk cultists we need to cultivate humility and calm, a willingness to follow data rather than beliefs and predictions.

Warning people about potential extreme risks from advanced AI does not make you a cultist. It makes you a realist. I love GPT and my whole life and plans are based on AI tools like it. But that doesn't mean that if you make it say 50% smarter and 50 times faster that it can't cause problems for people. Because all it takes is systems with superior reasoning capability to be given an overly broad goal. In less than fi…

A realist is someone who accepts reality as it is, not as they might be able to anxiously envision that it could be. Life is too short and attention too precious to fill the meme space with every dreamer's deepest concerns. None of these dramatic X-risk claims is based on anything but beliefs and conjecture. "Thinking dozens of times faster?" What do you even mean? These are models executing matrix multiplies billions of times faster than our brains propagate information, and they represent knowledge in a manner which is unique and different from human brains. They have no goals, no will, and no inner experience of us being frozen or fast or anything else. We are so prone to anthropomorphize willy-nilly. We evolved in a paradigm of resource competition so we have drives and impulses to protect, defend, devour, etc., of which AI models have zero. Anyone who has investigated reinforcement learning knows that we are currently far away from understanding let alone implementing systems which can effectively deconstruct abstract goals into concrete sub-tasks, yet people are soooo sure that these models are somehow going to all of a sudden be an enormous risk. Why don't we wait until there is even the slightest glimmer of evidence before listening to these prophets of doom?

This pseudo-intellectual belief structure is very cult like. Its an end of the world scenario that only an elite few can really understand, and they, our saviors, our band of reluctant nerd heroes, are screaming from the pulpit to warn us of utter destruction. The actual end of days. These "black box" (er, I mean, we engineered them that way after decades of research, but no, nobody really understands them, right?) shoggoths will be so incredibly brilliant that they will be able to dominate all of humanity. They will understand humans so well as to manipulate us out of existence, yet they will be so utterly stupid as to pursue paper clips at all cost.

Maybe instead these models will just be really useful software tools to compress knowledge and make it available to humanity in myriad forms to develop a next level of civilization on top of? People will become more educated and wise, the cost of goods and services will drop dramatically, thereby enriching all of humanity, and life will go on. There are straighter paths from where we are today to this set of predictions than there are to many of the doomsday scenarios, yet it has become hip among the intelligentsia to be concerned about everything. Being optimistic is somehow not real, (although the progress of civilization serves as great evidence that optimism is indeed rational) while being a loud mouthed scare mongerer or a quiet, very serious and concerned intellectual, is seen as respectable. Forget that. All the doomers can go rot in their depressive caves while the rest of us build a bad ass future for all of humanity. Once hail bop has passed over I hope everyone feels welcome to come back to the party.

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#158
post #153

As if anyone is good at predicting the future. Please can we stop acting like expertise equates to fortune telling capabilities?! Nobody has any clue what a 1000x sized GPT model could do, and anybody who makes strong claims is a charlatan. In this age of paranoid AI risk cultists we need to cultivate humility and calm, a willingness to follow data rather than beliefs and predictions.

> paranoid AI risk cultists There is broad consensus among experts that a hypothetical strong AI would be a threat, and potentially an existential threat, to humanity. While not everyone agrees on details like timeline and alignment issues, the idea that AI is dangerous is not a cult, it's the mainstream view. Climate scientists cannot "predict the future" with certainty either. That doesn't mean their warnings are h…

What nonsense. I've spent over a decade 100% focused on AI, and the broad consensus among everyone I've worked with is not to be that concerned at all. The only consensus is that a small group of self proclaimed experts who make a lot of noise is that they get lots of press coverage if they scream and shout making predictions based on zero scientific evidence.

We can understand the physics of greenhouse gases and take measurements of earth systems to build evidence for models and theories. (Many of which are nonetheless very inaccurate beyond short time horizons.) Show me any evidence for AI risk today beyond people's theories and beliefs?

The best predictor of the future is the past, not people's wild ideas about what the future could be. I'm not about to sit here feeling scared because there is more uncertainty that our matrix multiplies are about to go rogue. There are no AGI experts or AI risk experts, because we don't have any of these systems to study and analyze. What we have is people forming beliefs about their own predictions about systems which are unknowable.

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#159

Isn't the fundamental problem that LLM's don't actually understand anything (as greater concepts), but rather operate as complex probability machines? My 2 month active experience with ChatGPT-4 gave me the following takeaways: - when it's right, it's amazing; and when you, the operator, can recognize the niche use case where it performs really well, it can be a game-changer (although you could have programmed a tool…

Only you, a human developer can be truly creative. An LLM can only ever reproduce what it has seen before.

Re: Many in the AI field think the bigger-is-better approach is running out of road

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that any hidden variable resolving quantum indeterminacy would have to be non -local, i.e. able to propagate itself faster than light, which would also violate our understanding of the world quite a bit.

Locality may also be an abstraction. I find it very intriguing that a "speed of light" emerges automatically in Conway's Game of Life. It's not built into the system, but shows up from the convolutional update rule.

Your comparison with Conway's Game of Life is interesting, since that's inherently local.

More importantly, I'm skeptical towards non-locality because it is an extremely strong assumption with very weak effects: the only place it really shows up is in post-correlations between measurements of previously entangled systems, which notably cannot transfer any information faster than light (in fact, they require classical communication to even be noticed). Moreover, the only way to get entangled systems in the first place is through local interactions.

By believing in non-local hidden variables you get a deterministic universe with a mysterious, otherwise undetectable ether that instantaneously notifies quantum entities that they should update their behavior. By not believing in them, you get rid of the only n on-local "phenomenon" in physics (really, more of an interpretation) but you have to accept that some things are fundamentally random.

Easy choice, if you ask me (or most of the physics community).

Post reply on HN