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

361–370 of 374 posts

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#361

Post by __loam »

auggierose wrote: post #192
RandomLensman wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That maybe sufficient for advertising, marketing, some shallow story telling etc., it is way too dangerous for anything in the physical sciences, legal, medicine, ...

On their own, yes. But if you have an application where you can check the correctness of what they come up with, you are golden. Which is often the case in the hard sciences. It's almost like we need our AI's to have two brain parts. A fast one, for intuition, and a slow one, for correctness. ;-)

> But if you have an application where you can check the correctness of what they come up with, you are golden.

You're glossing over a shocking about of information here. The problems we'd like to use AI for are hard to find correct answers for. If we knew how to do this, we wouldn't need the AI.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#362

Post by rldjbpin »

disclaimer: i am in the middle of the journey into learning this subject, and have at least done finetuning on existing models. some may still consider my take as misinformed.

one thing i am not a big fan of in this discourse is that how the community makes up jargon to describe relatively simple things on one hand (a la "embeddings"), and while come up with misnomers like "hallucinations" to describe otherwise blunt things. it is contributing to miss the forest for the trees in this discussion.

while i agree it is quite impressive to see what the state of the art can seemingly achieve on surface, the way we approach designing these models are fundamentally not aligned with what we want to do with its result. while some media for generative machine learning produce relatively harmless results (e.g. images and audio), it is the text where i have a lot of reservations.

we train these models to essentially turn noise into something that humans can pass as acceptable (for the given prompt). Sadly, however, people outside (and sadly "inside") this space claim it to be the word of God.

i still strongly believe that a hybrid system is going to be the only way we can achieve the most from the current approach. almost a decade ago we were already good at parsing through sentence structure and "understanding" what the user writes. what the output is can easily be done with some hardcoding in logic with some noise thrown in by the models. however, it should only be treated with that level of seriousness.

i might be shouting into a void, but it is imperitive that we stop taking what these models output as production-ready code, or as a starting point even! otherwise, the only thing you achieve from this is to train the models running the chat services further.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#363

Post by AareyBaba »

wredue wrote: post #309
earthboundkid wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I apologize, because HN does tend to automatically go to crypto when discussing blockchain. I was not talking about crypto. Blockchain “solutions” in enterprise were spinning up all over the place for non-crypto applications. In particular, in you work financial, supply chain, government or random startups, you probably heard blockchain a lot in non-crypto contexts.

I would be interested in knowing of any non-crypto use case of decentralized blockchains that has gone mainstream and is financially viable.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#364

Post by cbozeman »

seanthemon wrote: post #258
cbozeman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've identified the problem inherent in these models right now, though. There's a lot of "extraneous" information and details that appear useless and unrelated, but that long-time developers have tucked away in their brains (or really anyone who has done something at a high level for a long time), that turns out to be incredibly useful; generally these people don't require examples - they just know what the right a…

Very insightful point - do you think that OpenAI and Microsoft are aiming at developers so that we may spill this knowledge by N-shotting the chat query? I.e if the AI doesn't understand some fundamental knowledge, often i'll teach it so that it can be more effective at helping me, inadvertently I spill some of this tucked knowledge.

I don't think they have any desire to use this knowledge for their own gain, since they explicitly say that your data will not be used to train their future models - both OpenAI is saying that about their trainable ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo model, and Azure OpenAI Service was clear on that as well.

I think the future is extremely well-trained base models that are then fine-tuned on specific domain knowledge. I'm already seeing that with Meta's Llama 2 personally at home. My company has access to Azure OpenAI Service's GPT-4 trainable model that we've been working with on all our documentation, and the results look very promising so far.

But, this idea of the All-Knowing Oracle that can answer any question you have is all well and good, but it's so far beyond our current processing power as to be a pointless endeavor at the moment. Will we get there eventually? Yeah, sure. According to Jim Keller as of around 2019/2020 when he was speaking on Lex Fridman's podcast, he said we still have room to go 1,000,000 times smaller - meaning chips. I think we probably need two more orders of magnitude in processing power of the strongest high-end GPUs before we're there. NVIDIA's H100 is a great achievement, but we need something about 100x as fast, and I think we'll still need dozens of them working in parallel to train the model that can answer all these questions.

All of this though is a moot point, because it's the lawyers that have already slowed down progress. OpenAI is terrified of being sued. Altman couches it behind terms like, "AI Safety", "AI Alignment", etc., but it's fear. It's all stemming from fear. And it's all stemming from people just not "getting it".

We're entering a new age of upheaval, and there's going to be rogue AIs that tell people to go kill themselves to reduce climate change. You know why? Because there are humans that tell people to go kill themselves to reduce climate change. These models are language models. We taught them how to think, and we taught them how to think like us, so it's no surprise to me whatsoever that they behave like us - meaning they occasionally lie and they occasionally go off the rails and go a little crazy.

We have become gods and we have made a creation in our own image. Most of the time it's awesome, sometimes it's a little wild and wacky.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#365

Post by andrewjl »

trashtester wrote: post #91
andrewjl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If scientists and engineers manage to implement autonomous cars and robots that can do basic human tasks like clean, wait and take care of the sick and elderly we will wake up in a brand new world. It will put a lot of stress on the basics of society, such as democracy and having to work for a salary. Based on the trends TFA discusses we'll be seeing severe social stress if basic tasks don't get automated. All due…

The only way we will NOT see severe social stress is if AI is able to barely keep up with the decline in labour supply. My gut feeling is that it will either be too little or way too much. Anyway, once they're able to fully robot-ify the police force, social upheaval may become easy to deal with for those in power.

> My gut feeling is that it will either be too little or way too much.

We've historically been very good at coming up with new things for people to do. Why would this time be any different?

On the other hand it takes over two decades from the time someone's born until they are part of the workforce. That won't change and as a result we have a pretty good idea of what the upper threshold on labor looks like globally the next few decades.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#366

Post by pdimitar »

pixl97 wrote: post #351
pdimitar wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Natural evolution has no direction itself, huge amounts of it are negative. It just happens those with positive traits get to hang around and breed some more.

Well, you are in fact correct, yep.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#367

Post by pdimitar »

pixl97 wrote: post #253
pdimitar wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because humans learn from much less samples sizes than "AI". The overly optimistic point of view on "AI" is over-represented in HN and that makes the discussion unbalanced and puts nearly everyone in it in a filter bubble. That's not OK.

Again, as per my previous response, you're missing the optimization timeline and how long it took nature to do it. "Walking" at least on dry land has been around 420 million years or so. The locomotion part of the learning algorithms has been around a very, very long time, and it's going to be very hard to duplicate the efficiency that nature brute forced. Nature has not hype optimized human level intelligence. Reall…

I can't disagree with almost anything you said except maybe one thing: in the physical nature there are objective and physical criteria about whether a certain organism will procreate and thus propagate its (presumably) successful genes.

Not sure if the AI area, represented by human supervisors, does so in such an objective and ruthless manner as nature does.

If there's no fitness function and natural selection then the AI area might be doomed to meander and go in circles for centuries.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#368

Post by savolai »

coldtea wrote: post #139
savolai wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? That's more about ethics and an wish for moral behavior and conflict aversion, than about intelligence. Intelligence (human and AI) could just as well opt for conflict and evil…

Not sure how being able to reason about good behaviour in an effective manner that's collectively beneficial isn't in the domain of intelligence.

We have moral philosophy as an academic discipline, after all.

Human brains develop in interrelation. Much, if not all of our intelligence gets developed in relation to other humans and beings.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#369

Post by coldtea »

savolai wrote: post #368
coldtea wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? That's more about ethics and an wish for moral behavior and conflict aversion, than about intelligence. Intelligence (human and AI) could just as well opt for conflict and evil…

Not sure how being able to reason about good behaviour in an effective manner that's collectively beneficial isn't in the domain of intelligence. We have moral philosophy as an academic discipline, after all. Human brains develop in interrelation. Much, if not all of our intelligence gets developed in relation to other humans and beings.

>Not sure how being able to reason about good behaviour in an effective manner that's collectively beneficial isn't in the domain of intelligence.

That's neither here nor there.

Having the intelligence "to reason about good behaviour in an effective manner that's collectively beneficial" doesn't mean you're constrained to reason and act only on that, and not also able to reason and act on behavior which is beneficial to you to the detriment of others and the collective.

And it's pefectly intelligent to follow the latter if you can get away with it, and if the benefit for you is more than your share of the collective benefit alternatives would be.

>We have moral philosophy as an academic discipline, after all.

And how has that been working out for us?

(Not to mention, keyword: academic).

>Human brains develop in interrelation. Much, if not all of our intelligence gets developed in relation to other humans and beings.

Yes, and a lot of it is devoted to duping and getting the upper hand of those other humans and beings. So?

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#370

Post by stuckinhell »

jprete wrote: post #337
stuckinhell wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open source community has breakthrough after breakthrough lately. its absolutely stunning how fast it's advancing. I can run art models and llms on cpu/gpu now. I've tested out opensource models with quality better than chatgpt3.5turbo, and I can even fine tune them on my notes and books for better results. It's all so easy with so many one click installers now too! My husbands D&D group uses some AI for their ga…

> I can run art models and llms on cpu/gpu now. I've tested out opensource models with quality better than chatgpt3.5turbo, and I can even fine tune them on my notes and books for better results. It's all so easy with so many one click installers now too! Do you have a good resource to find this stuff? I’m behind the times. (Also, to be a pedant, most of that is inference and not training. But I can’t say much about…

Honestly no good single resource, I spend 8 hours a week just taking notes from hackernews,discord, hackernoon, slack ai groups, reddit, github issues (probably the most useful) on various open source ai libraries.

It's real work to keep up on everything.

Post reply on HN