We don't need better LLMs to eliminate all McDonalds workers. In fact there's no language model needed there at all. The job just needs better robotics.
AI isn’t good enough
241–250 of 374 posts
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#242>We are bumping against many of its >limits He keeps saying that as a fact with absolutely no proof and based his whole argument on it.
Conversely, if you don't know what the limits are yourself (and you don't) you wouldn't know either way. So I'm not quite sure if you'e added anything here unfortunately.
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why is it always the same reply? I keep going around telling people that 1+1=3, why do they always give me the same nonsense about the number '2'? I blame Sam Altman.
?
The point is that people keep repeating it because it's true. Why are you being so obnoxious about it? Anyone who has used GPT-3.5 vs GPT-4 knows this and it's just ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are ignoring the fact that a toddler, once their musculature develops, is able to learn to walk after several tries. Show me a humanoid robot that can do that.
At that point, the toddler's still run years of self-reinforced learning (as well as learning supported by parents, and observing other humans solving the problem) on controlling their muscles... and again, think of the computational power expended over that time (by a computational approach that's been highly-optimised over millions of years of trial-and-error recursive descent style). Our intellect and capabilities…
>> Our intellect and capabilities are the result of a truly vast amount of computation in the grand scheme of things.
This is an interesting paradox in machine learning: the data that people use to (ostensibly!) simulate the human mind is simultaneously way too much, and not nearly enough. It's way too much in that humans can, e.g., learn to generate and recognise natural language without having to train on the entire World Wide Web of a corpus. And it's not nearly enough because humans can do that only after billions of years of evolution, which amount to training on all the data in the real world, not a mere few petabytes of data on the internet [1].
This paradox has to be resolved (i.e. understood) before we can really compare humans minds to artificial systems. Unfortunately, I don't see anybody trying. In machine learning so far people are happy to just plug in the data and turn the crank- something will come out eventually.
______________
[1] Source: https://archive.li/EY9ak
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, not several. Not several trillions either though. As mentioned in a sibling comment, HN anthropomorphizes AI too much. And is too optimistic about it. I just don't see the results and the value, people trip up all over themselves to congratulate themselves and the researches, yet 99.99% of the problems in the world persist. I am one of these a-holes that wants to see results when money are invested. It still co…
I mean, if we're taking the random walk that nature took to get human level intelligence from the first multicellular organisms you'll have to wait 600 million years or so. AI takes a shortcut around having a timeline of a trillion different versions history optimizing the learning algorithm and putting the successful ones in a timeline, but at a cost of trillions of operations to teach it. TL;DR, the problem space i…
You are extremely generously assuming that AI evolution has a direction and a purpose/goal like the organic one has.
It doesn't. We are steering it. And I doubt that we know better than the natural evolution.
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can research predict this wave is coming to an end, when research also didn't think this wave would happen either. It seems like there are always people saying 'it can't be done'. Then it happens. If there was a way to predict the future, then wouldn't that research need to know how something would be implemented, in order to know it can't be?
Blockchain was a complete bust, and middle managers need buzzwords to sell senior leadership. That’s my personal take on the current wave.
I've seen this as well as the dying down of the hype once the new cycle dropped off on AI hype.
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#247This 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…
> I want to know only one thing, what gives the confidence to say otherwise?
Remember that UFO poster? “I want to believe”.
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing all of the subskills that are developed along the way. They don't just grow, braindead, and twitch a couple times until they get the hang of walking. Its a joy to watch a child grow up, but also its super interesting watching them figure out the most basic shit. Would highly recommend if you get the opportunity.
I would love it if AI is raised like that but so far it seems to be not the case. :|
Turing wrote about "the child machine" in his "Intelligent machinery" paper. See:
Bringing Up Turing’s ‘Child-Machine’ by Susan G. Sterrett
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30870-3_...
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#249Earlier 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…
>Which is countered by...the assertion that it won't? No it's countered by principled restraint in not making an affirmative claim one way or the other. I've heard this referred to as the overconfident pessimism problem. Which is that normal, well founded scientific discipline and evidence-based restraint go out of the window when people declare, without evidence that they know certain advances won't happen. Because…
I think that depends on what "it" refers to. If I claim that "it" is the end of the world, and that it will happen no later than 2024, I suspect that most scientifically minded folks would have no problem considering my claim as having a low probability of coming true.
First of all because so many predictions of the end of the world have been made and we tend to have a hunch about the kind of person who makes them. Which is stereotyping, sure, but at least it's a heuristic, not a straight-up abandonment of evidence-based thinking.
I agree there's uncertainty about the future of AI development, but it's true that we have no idea how to create AI, right now, so the uncertainty is about whether it will happen, not whether it won't. If that makes sense.
Re: AI isn’t good enough
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can research predict this wave is coming to an end, when research also didn't think this wave would happen either. It seems like there are always people saying 'it can't be done'. Then it happens. If there was a way to predict the future, then wouldn't that research need to know how something would be implemented, in order to know it can't be?
Blockchain was a complete bust, and middle managers need buzzwords to sell senior leadership. That’s my personal take on the current wave.
I am a mild LLM skeptic. But I find the response of "oh, it's all just post-crypto scamming" really weird. Crypto was a total scam. There was never a concrete, non-criminal (important caveat) application where crypto was easier than just using PayPal or whatever. LLMs are very imperfect and still have a lot of work to do, but they do actually do some job related tasks today. If I have JS snippet and I wish it were in Go or vice versa, I can ask an LLM and get a good translation. If I have a document, I can ask the LLM if there's something I should add or simplify. Are these world changing capabilities? No, not yet. But they do exist and they are real and they are new. So yes, of course investors are interested in a new technology whose future limits we don't know yet.