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

Generative AI's Act Two

sequoiacap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#71

Post by tetris11 »

LZ_Khan wrote: post #65
mabbo wrote: post #25

The moment that generative AI became something crazy for me was when I said "holy shit, maybe Blake Lemoine was right". Lemoine was the Google engineer who made a big fuss saying that Google had a sentient AI in development and he felt there were ethical issues to consider. And at the time we all sort of chuckled- of course Google doesn't have a true AGI in there. No one can do that. And it wasn't much later I had my…

Oh he was right for sure.

I read through the transcripts and was stunned when my more CS-oriented colleagues dismissed it as stochastic parroting. It sure sounded human to me.

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#72

Post by ToucanLoucan »

mabbo wrote: post #25

The moment that generative AI became something crazy for me was when I said "holy shit, maybe Blake Lemoine was right". Lemoine was the Google engineer who made a big fuss saying that Google had a sentient AI in development and he felt there were ethical issues to consider. And at the time we all sort of chuckled- of course Google doesn't have a true AGI in there. No one can do that. And it wasn't much later I had my…

They feel sentient in many cases because they're trained by people using data they've selected in the hope that they can train it to be sentient. And the models in turn are just mechanical turks repeating back what they've already read in slightly different ways. Ergo, they "feel" sentient, because to train them, we need to tell them which outputs are more correct, and we do that by telling them the ones that sound more sentient are more correct.

It's cool stuff but if you ever really want to know for sure, ask one of these things to summarize the conversation you just had, and watch the illusion completely fall to pieces. They don't retain anything above the barest whiff of a context to continue predicting word output, and a summary is therefore completely beyond their abilities.

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#73

Post by __loam »

dmd wrote: post #40
RC_ITR wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint to this is always "models work with numerical vectors and we translate those to/from words" These things feel sentient because they talk like us, but if I told you that I have a machine that takes 1 20k-dimensional vector and turns it into another meaningful 20k-dimensional vector, you definitely wouldn't call that sentience.

What if I told you I have a machine that takes 1 20k-dimensional vector and turns it into another meaningful 20k-dimensional vector, but the machine is made of a bunch of proteins and fats and liquids and gels? Would you be willing to call it sentient now?

[flagged]

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#74

Post by Jensson »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #49
saiya-jin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learn yes, if its legally shared. Copy and earn from it without acknowledging original author and sharing earnings, in most cases, definitely not. As we know, things that often move so fast have law catching up easily after a decade if not more (I am still waiting for a proper slap to FB), and entrepreneurs are well aware of that.

But that's not how it works at all? If I watch 100s of artists cell shade something and build a normal piece of software that mimics the results I owe them absolutely nothing. I've not seen an explanation as to why this is different.

People are fine with AI learning stuff from others. People are not fine with AI trained on everyone's recorded work and then replacing everyone to make massive profits for just that company.

Private owned GAI is a dystopia, shared GAI is utopia like star trek. The difference might seem tiny today, but people really don't want to go down the dystopia route.

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#75

Post by whimsicalism »

GiorgioG wrote: post #63

Can't wait for most of these companies to disappear once the hype dies down and the money dries up. Generative AI in its current form is a huge letdown.

Typical HN pessimism, but I strongly disagree with anyone characterizing it as a huge letdown.

Even if you personally don't get much use out of it (honestly hard for me to believe if you give it a fair try), there are tons of uses that will be impacting you significantly within the next year. Contrast that with crypto.

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#76

Post by whimsicalism »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #27
mabbo wrote: post #25

The moment that generative AI became something crazy for me was when I said "holy shit, maybe Blake Lemoine was right". Lemoine was the Google engineer who made a big fuss saying that Google had a sentient AI in development and he felt there were ethical issues to consider. And at the time we all sort of chuckled- of course Google doesn't have a true AGI in there. No one can do that. And it wasn't much later I had my…

Isn't the takeaway : "holy shit, these things are advanced enough to make people like Blake Lemoine believe they are sentient?"

Having witnessed this debate maybe 50 times now, my view is it is purely about semantics.

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#77

Post by teeray »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #27
mabbo wrote: post #25

The moment that generative AI became something crazy for me was when I said "holy shit, maybe Blake Lemoine was right". Lemoine was the Google engineer who made a big fuss saying that Google had a sentient AI in development and he felt there were ethical issues to consider. And at the time we all sort of chuckled- of course Google doesn't have a true AGI in there. No one can do that. And it wasn't much later I had my…

Isn't the takeaway : "holy shit, these things are advanced enough to make people like Blake Lemoine believe they are sentient?"

Isn’t that the hallmark of the Turing Test?

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#78

Post by whimsicalism »

tetris11 wrote: post #71
LZ_Khan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh he was right for sure.

I read through the transcripts and was stunned when my more CS-oriented colleagues dismissed it as stochastic parroting. It sure sounded human to me.

Dunning-kruger of CS orientation.

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#79

Post by Jensson »

worldsayshi wrote: post #55
te_chris wrote: post #6

Turns out everyone wants to sell shovels

Maybe trying to sell shovels is at worst a good way to learn how to best use shovels or which shovels are actually best? Then you can get ahead in the shovelling game.

People bought shovels to look for gold, not to dig ditches. Selling shovels doesn't make you better at finding gold mines.

Re: Generative AI's Act Two

#80

Post by __loam »

jerrygenser wrote: post #66
callalex wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any examples of companies turning a GAAP profit using generative models that aren’t selling the shovels, but actually using them to dig?

Adobe is already incorporated genAI into core product and will start pricing for compute units. This is part of their core product, not a tool being sold to other people to build genAI products

Shoving a gen ai tool into another tool doesn't really tell us anything about the market dynamics of the Gen ai stuff.
Post reply on HN