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

121–130 of 374 posts

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#121

Post by benterix »

alpaca128 wrote: post #114
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 Even assuming that is true: LLMs aren't all that exists in AI research and just like LLMs are amazing in terms of language it's possible similar breakthroughs could be made in more abstracted areas that could use LLMs for IO. If you think ChatGPT is nice, wait for ChatGPT as frontend for another AI that doesn't have to spend a single CPU cycle on language.

> LLMs aren't all that exists in AI research

Frankly, I'm a bit worried about all the rest now that LLMs proved to be so successful. We might exploit them and arrive to a dead end. In the meantime, other potentially crucial developments in AI might get less attention and funding.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#122

Post by auggierose »

nopinsight wrote: post #108
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…

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.

Anyone who has worked a bit with a top LLM thinks that they learn world models. Otherwise, what they are doing would be impossible. I've used them for things that are definitely not on the web, because they are brand new research. They are definitely able to apply what they've learnt in novel ways.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#123

Post by barrysteve »

intended wrote: post #35
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…

I can take a bet that it haha already failed - the hype cycle has already made a promise that LLMs can’t keep. Hallucinations to the normal person are a bug. The issue is that only humans can hallucinate. We know there is a “reality”. For an LLM, everything it does is a hallucination. That’s why you have more POCs than production goods. Your “hallucination rate” is unknown. Yesterday Ars has an article that described…

The bigger problem is that an accurate LLM is such a massive speed up in coding (an order of magnitude, hypothetically at least), that there is zero incentive to share it.

All American programming tech has relied on an time-and-knowledge gap to keep big companies in power.

Using visual studio and c++ to create programs is trivial or speedy if you have a team of programmers and know what pitfalls to avoid. If you're a public pleb/peasant who doesn't know the pitfalls, you're going to waste thousands of hours hitting pointless errors, conceptual problems and scaling issues.

Hallucinating LLMs are marketable to the public. Accurate LLMs are a weapon best kept private.

I am always intriguied by the people who say LLMs provide a massive benefit to their programming and never ever provide examples............

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#124

Post by Viliam1234 »

nopinsight wrote: post #108
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…

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.

A typical parrot repeats after you said something. A parrot that could predict your words before you said them, and could impersonate you in a phone call, would be quite scary (calling Hollywood, sounds like an interesting move idea). A parrot that could listen to you talking for hours, and then provide you a short summary, would probably also be called intelligent.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#125

Post by RandomLensman »

auggierose wrote: post #122
nopinsight wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone who has worked a bit with a top LLM thinks that they learn world models. Otherwise, what they are doing would be impossible. I've used them for things that are definitely not on the web, because they are brand new research. They are definitely able to apply what they've learnt in novel ways.

If they learn world models, those world models are incredible poor, i.e., there is no consistency of thought in those world models.

In my experience, things outside coding quickly devolve into something more like "technobabble" (and in coding there is always a lot of made-up stuff that doesn't exists in terms of functions etc.).

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#126

Post by w1nk »

nopinsight wrote: post #108
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…

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.

Just to further this, it's not just 'big names' that feel this way. Read this paper from a team at Microsoft Research: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 . These folks spent months studying properties of GPT-4, that paper is ~150 pages of examples probing the boundaries of the model's world understanding. There is obviously some emergent complexity arising from the training procedure.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#127

Post by nly »

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…

Parrots are pretty intelligent. Seems like a an unfair analogy

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#128

Post by Havoc »

I don't think the assertion that we've reached the end of current wave of AI is correct. It hasn't even been rolled out to anything yet.

Once it is fully integrated into os/browser/corporate workspace and the MBA's have thrown LLMs at every business problem they can think of then perhaps but right now it hasn't even left high tech circles

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#129

Post by barrysteve »

petermcneeley wrote: post #3

"too few people for all the jobs, for the most part" - Are wages going up? "But almost everywhere else needs people. Badly. Across retail, restaurants, manufacturing, trades, and on and on, companies are struggling to hire. " - Wow sounds like an exciting star trek future that I cant wait to be part of! "labor became more expensive than capital" - So wages must be going up right? "In essence, the authors show that fo…

I don't get it. McDonalds can fully automate their restaurants and chooses not to.

There is a crisis in housing and house prices, but we are not automating house production.

The electric car revolution is hitting growth barriers, waiting for cities to electrify enough to support a full car fleet.

None of the problems are primarily technological, they are a failure of resource discovery and electrical infrastructure.

But resource exploitation has got a bad rap and men are not populating materials science, geology, agriculture, ect at university.

We don't need manufacturing, restaurants and trades that can be automated (or made efficient) with technology.

We need more resources and more material wealth, for labour, to labour towards.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#130

Post by nottorp »

Rereereetret wrote: post #76
intended wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can take a bet that it haha already failed - the hype cycle has already made a promise that LLMs can’t keep. Hallucinations to the normal person are a bug. The issue is that only humans can hallucinate. We know there is a “reality”. For an LLM, everything it does is a hallucination. That’s why you have more POCs than production goods. Your “hallucination rate” is unknown. Yesterday Ars has an article that described…

And while you mention one article with a negative experience, tons of positive article came out too. GitHub copilot is really good and useful. All demos I saw which use LLMs were spectacular. The ai race started this year for everyone which means we will continuesly see progress. And while you only mention LlM the whole ai space is crazy. There is a high chance that the architecture from LLMs will change. And we have…

> All demos I saw which use LLMs were spectacular.

Aren't demos always spectacular?

Post reply on HN