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

AI isn’t good enough

skventures.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 374 posts

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#101

Post by savolai »

beefield wrote: post #78
usrbinbash wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This entire piece is based on one massive, unsupported assertion, which is that LLM progress will cease. Which is countered by...the assertion that it won't? LLMs won't get intelligent. That's a fact based on their MO. They are sequence completion engines. They can be fine tuned to specific tasks, but at their core, they remain stochastic parrots. > I want to know only one thing, which is what gives him the confide…

> LLMs won't get intelligent. That's a fact based on their MO. I kind of agree. However, I see a real possibility that in the near future LLM behaviour would be practically indistinguishable from intelligent/sentient behavior. And at that point we (or at least I) are facing some really interesting/difficult questions, namely how do you know an intelligent looking thing actually is intelligent (or sentient). How do yo…

It seems to me that the real question here is what is true human intelligence. Ai has made it plain to see, by being able to replicate it so convincingly, that much of what we have considered intelligence has been pattern matching or acting as complex parrots.

There is much more to the abilities of human body-mind-emotional-experiential being, but it is only slowly becoming mainstream.

(Edit: Of course there are also many analytical skills that AI cannot match at this point. My point is that we shouldn’t overlook any area of human capacity.)

One salient question in this is: will we reach a level of intelligence where we become beings capable of actual collaboration that doesn’t waste so much effort in conflicts, or one that is capable of living in harmony within its environment?

What capabilities of awareness, trauma work, emotional maturity and self reflection does this require? What resources hidden inside humanity that we have forgotten do we need to wield?

Does AI have something to contribute to this process happening?

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#102

Post by PlunderBunny »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #87
usrbinbash wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This entire piece is based on one massive, unsupported assertion, which is that LLM progress will cease. Which is countered by...the assertion that it won't? LLMs won't get intelligent. That's a fact based on their MO. They are sequence completion engines. They can be fine tuned to specific tasks, but at their core, they remain stochastic parrots. > I want to know only one thing, which is what gives him the confide…

> LLMs won't get intelligent. I think this sentence doesn't mean much unless we have a strict definition of what intelligence means. Just today ChatGPT helped me solve a DNS issue that I would not have been able to solve on my own in one day, let alone an hour. I'd consider it already more intelligent than myself when it comes to DNS.

“… unless we have a strict definition of what intelligence means.”

There were some Greek guys working on that exact problem a few (thousand) years ago.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#103

Post by BartjeD »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #98
Aperocky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's seen more DNS content than you and anybody else have seen in their entire lives, and are able to regurgitate what it read because it has far faster memory access than you did. A dictionary contain knowledge but no intelligence.

And LLMs are the opposite of dictionary, actually. They suck at storing facts. They excel at extracting patterns from noise and learning them. It's not obvious to me that this isn't intelligence; on the contrary, I feel it's very much a core component of it.

Isn't that a dictionary of patterns?

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#104

Post by velvetz »

beefield wrote: post #78
usrbinbash wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This entire piece is based on one massive, unsupported assertion, which is that LLM progress will cease. Which is countered by...the assertion that it won't? LLMs won't get intelligent. That's a fact based on their MO. They are sequence completion engines. They can be fine tuned to specific tasks, but at their core, they remain stochastic parrots. > I want to know only one thing, which is what gives him the confide…

> LLMs won't get intelligent. That's a fact based on their MO. I kind of agree. However, I see a real possibility that in the near future LLM behaviour would be practically indistinguishable from intelligent/sentient behavior. And at that point we (or at least I) are facing some really interesting/difficult questions, namely how do you know an intelligent looking thing actually is intelligent (or sentient). How do yo…

Off-topic and might sound strange but I find it intriguing that you wrote behavior and behaviour in these two different forms in the same sentence:)

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#105

Post by layer8 »

GolDDranks wrote: post #75
user3939382 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked ChatGPT how to add a JSDoc type to a Vue 2 prop and it gave me a wrong answer. There have been several times where I’ve asked it questions and it sprinkles in well disguised misinformation. These tools are impressive but they definitely have limitations.

I don't encounter a lot of "small", one-copy-paste-size problems in my daily work that I couldn't quickly solve myself, so I haven't found a lot of use for ChatGPT while coding, yet. (I reckon this is changing though.) However a few times there have been some mechanical refactoring-style grunt work I've delighted to have been able to let ChatGPT do. However, the rate ChatGPT is giving me subtly wrong results is just…

> Give it a year or two, maybe?

Maybe? It’s not clear what would bring a qualitative improvement, barring massive amounts of new training data.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#106

Post by worrycue »

savolai wrote: post #101
beefield wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs won't get intelligent. That's a fact based on their MO. I kind of agree. However, I see a real possibility that in the near future LLM behaviour would be practically indistinguishable from intelligent/sentient behavior. And at that point we (or at least I) are facing some really interesting/difficult questions, namely how do you know an intelligent looking thing actually is intelligent (or sentient). How do yo…

It seems to me that the real question here is what is true human intelligence. Ai has made it plain to see, by being able to replicate it so convincingly, that much of what we have considered intelligence has been pattern matching or acting as complex parrots. There is much more to the abilities of human body-mind-emotional-experiential being, but it is only slowly becoming mainstream. (Edit: Of course there are also…

> It seems to me that the real question here is what is true human intelligence.

IMHO the main weakness with LLMs is they can’t really reason. They can statistically guess their way to an answer - and they do so surprisingly well I will have to admit - but they can’t really “check” themselves to ensure what they are outputting makes any sense like humans do (most of the time) - hence the hallucinations.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#107

Post by Philpax »

_xivi wrote: post #54
ryanklee wrote: post #2

"We are quickly reaching the limits of current AI" So many words in this piece, but nothing to back up this primary assertion.

> nothing to back up this primary assertion. Well, he's making a prediction, a speculation, a claim. If it was as simple as `x->y` it would no longer be valuable.

Sure, but even then you're expected to back up your speculation. There doesn't seem to be anything within the article to support the claim that we're at the tail end of development; just assumptions that today's limitations will apply tomorrow.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#108

Post by nopinsight »

usrbinbash wrote: post #67
ambrozk wrote: post #18

This entire piece is based on one massive, unsupported assertion, which is that LLM progress will cease. Or, as the author puts it, "we are at the tail end of the first wave of large language model-based AI... [it] ends somewhere in the next year or two with the kinds of limits people are running up against." I want to know only one thing, which is what gives him the confidence necessary to say that. If that one stat…

> This entire piece is based on one massive, unsupported assertion, which is that LLM progress will cease. Which is countered by...the assertion that it won't? LLMs won't get intelligent. That's a fact based on their MO. They are sequence completion engines. They can be fine tuned to specific tasks, but at their core, they remain stochastic parrots. > I want to know only one thing, which is what gives him the confide…

Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Ng, and quite a few other top AI researchers believe that current LLMs (and incoming waves of multimodal LFMs) learn world models; they are not simply 'stochastic parrots'.

If one feeds GPT-4 a novel problem that does not require multi-step reasoning or very high precision to solve, it can often solve it.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#109

Post by HPsquared »

edf13 wrote: post #93
usrbinbash wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This entire piece is based on one massive, unsupported assertion, which is that LLM progress will cease. Which is countered by...the assertion that it won't? LLMs won't get intelligent. That's a fact based on their MO. They are sequence completion engines. They can be fine tuned to specific tasks, but at their core, they remain stochastic parrots. > I want to know only one thing, which is what gives him the confide…

> They are sequence completion engines But at the basic level - isn't our own brain just a sequence completion engine too?

The brain does seem to do a lot of pattern-matching and prediction.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#110

Post by worrycue »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #98
Aperocky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's seen more DNS content than you and anybody else have seen in their entire lives, and are able to regurgitate what it read because it has far faster memory access than you did. A dictionary contain knowledge but no intelligence.

And LLMs are the opposite of dictionary, actually. They suck at storing facts. They excel at extracting patterns from noise and learning them. It's not obvious to me that this isn't intelligence; on the contrary, I feel it's very much a core component of it.

> They excel at extracting patterns from noise and learning them.

You can argue those are facts too.

Post reply on HN