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

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 354 posts

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

#341

Post by regularfry »

Retric wrote: post #336
regularfry wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Othello paper is hardly a counter example. Researchers created an Othello specific model that almost learned the grammar of Othello not how to play well. Yes, there was largely correct internal game state built up from past moves. No it didn’t actually learn the rules so it would make strictly legal moves nor did it learn to make good moves It is, though. Nobody said anything about playing well, or learning the…

> The very fact that it had a valid internal representation of the game state means it's extrapolated beyond token-level. Which is the point. The paper said it was making incorrect moves thus it has an invalid representation of the game. So an LLM when specifically trained on Othello, a game with very simple and completely mechanical rules, failed to abstract what those rules actually where. This means at a purely me…

Except that incorrect moves don't imply an incorrect representation.

The internal representation was a literal 8x8 grid of piece locations they could externally change and have it generate moves consistent with the changed position. It's about the clearest example of a learned higher-level internal representation I can think I've seen.

The fact that it didn't also perfectly learn the rules while it was doing that is entirely uninteresting.

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

#342

Post by tchaffee »

murderfs wrote: post #210
tchaffee wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishment is not effective for most people in reducing crime. One thing that is effective is increasing the perceived risk of getting caught. People rarely commit crimes when they are sure they will be caught.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that punishment has absolutely no effect on whether someone will commit a crime. Even so, there's still a benefit to imprisonment: it separates criminals from society for a period of time, during which they won't be committing crimes against it.

Sure but separation can be a harsh punishment or a caring and comfortable place. Some countries do the latter and have lower recidivism rates.

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

#343

Post by tchaffee »

brutusborn wrote: post #287
tchaffee wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishment is not effective for most people in reducing crime. One thing that is effective is increasing the perceived risk of getting caught. People rarely commit crimes when they are sure they will be caught.

I hear this often but don't see much evidence of it. Do you know of any good studies to support the idea that punishment isn't effective?

To be clearer, it's not that some form of punishment isn't effective. It's that more severe punishment is not more effective. And prevention is the most effective. There are plenty of studies. A search doesn't surface any for you? What search terms have you tried?

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

#344

Post by famouswaffles »

skepticATX wrote: post #34
Animats wrote: 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.

This is ultimately just very powerful semantic search though, is it not? It seems that what we need to make a big leap forward is better reasoning. There is a lot of debate between the GPT-4 can/can't reason camps, but I haven't seen anyone try to argue that it reasons particularly well.

You can easily argue 4 reasons particularly well, especially with average human performance as the baseline.

People who argue against GPT-4 reasoning at all are arguing against clear results. It extremely easy to show examples and benchmarks of 4 reasoning and understanding. The argument then turns into "well that's not "true" reasoning", whatever that means.

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

#345

Post by famouswaffles »

usrbinbash wrote: post #340
exitb wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've claimed that LLMs create most probable output, which does not necessarily align with truth. So a bigger LLM will be better at creating the most probable output, but that would not translate into being more truthful. That could be interpreted as "better LLMs are expected to be better bullshitters". That is not what we've observed though. Quite the opposite - we're seeing that the bigger LLM is and the more doma…

> You've claimed that LLMs create most probable output, which does not necessarily align with truth. No, that is not my claim. That is part of the explanation for it. My claim is this: An LLM is incapable of knowing when it produces false information, as it simply doesn't have a concept of "truthfulness". It deals in probabilities, not alignment with objective reality. And it doesn't matter how big you make them...th…

Your claim was literally proven wrong in a previous comment with GPT-4's calibration.

a LLM can indeed know when it produces likely incorrect responses. Not a hypothetical.

What's the point of making claims you have no intention of rescinding regardless of evidence ? People are so funny.

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

#346

Post by vidarh »

brutusborn wrote: post #323
zappchance wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a firm believer in deterrence, which you seem to be describing. It's a seperate thing from punitive justice which has a focus on retribution. The method is similar but the aim is different (deterrence focuses on making the cost-benefit ratio for crimes very high, while retribution is mainly to satisfy the human need for fairness through punishment).

Is there any real practical difference? Sounds like the only real change is how you frame the ‘punishment’/‘deterrance’

It has a difference because if your goal is deterrence, then if it can be shown that other means of deterrence are better, then it is logical to apply those even if they reduce the apparent punishment, while if your goal is punishment you might want to keep punishing people even if it is shown to not be effective.

See e.g. the debates over lenient prisons in Scandinavia such as Bastøy Prison, where the lenient treatment is seen as justified on a deterrence and recidivism basis but which would be seen as negative if you see the goal of the sentencing to be harsh in order to punish.

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

#347

Post by vidarh »

tchaffee wrote: post #179
Legend2440 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of punishment is to discourage you (and other people) from doing that action in the future. You don't need free will for that.

If you don't have free will then how would something discourage you from doing something that is already determined you will do? That doesn't make any sense.

I consider the notion of free will absolute utter nonsense, but I still don't agree with this.

Determinism does not mean "irrespective of what else happens, X will happen". It means "because of what else happened, X will happen". You can't say ahead of time that X will happen irrespective whether between now and then something else occurs that might affect the next events, such as actions meant to discourage you. You can only make that determination knowing the full chain of events and the full state.

One of the main argument people use against determinism is this notion that X will happen irrespective of what else happens or what you choose to do. But this is nonsense. You can't say that e.g. whether you keep your job and get fired is already determined, so it makes no difference if you stop going to work. If you stop going work you'll eventually get fired, because your failure to go to work will form part of a chain of cause and effect. Determinism, or even a stochastic universe, without free will just means that you did not have a free choice in the decisions involved. But you still took an action, and that action determined the consequences.

A rejection of free will means we should look differently at the past, because it has moral implications; it does not mean we should stop making the best choices we can going forward, even if we believe those choices are illusory and deterministic.

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

#348

Post by vidarh »

tchaffee wrote: post #317
layer8 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, a deterministic computer program wouldn’t need inputs. What is being claimed by a deterministic world model is that the output (behavior and internal state change) of a human is a pure function of its current state and inputs. Then we try to give inputs that will lead to desired outputs. The non-compatibilist view of free will is that it is not a pure function, namely that there is a third independent…

You can't try to give inputs that will lead to desired outputs if you have no free will. You can't try to do anything. You just do exactly what you're programed to do.

Even if you can't try, you are still providing inputs, and how you e.g. react to the actions of others will be input to their further actions. That your control over these actions is illusory does not mean the actions themselves do not exist.

If I tell someone not to do something again, then that is an input to their future states whether or not my decision to tell them that was freely chosen or not.

If you go into that situation with the belief that not having free will means that what you do does not matter, and your action as a result is to not tell them, then that will affect their future states too. And so whether or not you have a real, free choice, it is beneficial to act as if free will exist even if you see it as an illusion.

I strongly believe we have no free will. I still get up and work, and try to do as best I can. I believe those choices are not free, but they feel like choices, and they impact my life, so I am happy I act as if they are free.

And so I'll still talk about making choices and trying to do things because of that illusion even though I believe it's all a chain of cause and effect.

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

#349

Post by [deleted] »

vidarh wrote: post #348
tchaffee wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't try to give inputs that will lead to desired outputs if you have no free will. You can't try to do anything. You just do exactly what you're programed to do.

Even if you can't try, you are still providing inputs, and how you e.g. react to the actions of others will be input to their further actions. That your control over these actions is illusory does not mean the actions themselves do not exist. If I tell someone not to do something again, then that is an input to their future states whether or not my decision to tell them that was freely chosen or not. If you go into t…

[deleted]

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

#350

Post by tchaffee »

vidarh wrote: post #348
tchaffee wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't try to give inputs that will lead to desired outputs if you have no free will. You can't try to do anything. You just do exactly what you're programed to do.

Even if you can't try, you are still providing inputs, and how you e.g. react to the actions of others will be input to their further actions. That your control over these actions is illusory does not mean the actions themselves do not exist. If I tell someone not to do something again, then that is an input to their future states whether or not my decision to tell them that was freely chosen or not. If you go into t…

I'm choosing to not continue debating with a self-admitted bot.
Post reply on HN