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

The AI bullshit singularity

successfulsoftware.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 187 posts

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#121

Post by smackeyacky »

krono wrote: post #109
Eliah_Lakhin wrote: post #96

I think that people's believe in LLM is intelligence is closely tied to mistaken association between intelligence and the ability to speak. Parrots can speak, but they cannot reason. Moreover, evolutionary, birds learned to mimic the speech to fool other species. To fool in such way that other species would think that parrots are of the same specie. We, the humans, are smart enough to recognise that even though parro…

I believe you are vastly underestimating the capabilities of parrots or similarly intelligent birds. At least when my pet parrot manages to fool me into whatever it is he wants to get out of me that time, he does it for his own primal benefit and not because it was programmed to adhere to some strict set of ethic and moral boundaries set by legal requirements and someone else's idea of how people should think and beh…

The smart behaviour of parrots and their speech synthesis are two different phenomenon.

Parrots are definitely smart, and parrots can definitely speak, but they can't learn to speak beyond what they are trained to do. It's not like a parrot has ever spontaneously put together a coherent sentence independently.

LLMs aren't even that smart. Not even close.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#122

Post by hermitcrab »

rocqua wrote: post #72
scottbez1 wrote: post #20

Succinctly stated and something that resonates strongly with me. In the last internet revolution (web search), results started high quality because the inputs were high quality - bloggers and others just wanted to document and share knowledge. But over time, many interests (largely commercial) figured out how to game the system with SEO, and quality of search results has decreased as search's incentive structure led…

Unlike the low background radiation steel, high quality content will still continue to be created. Arguably even at a faster rate with these powerful tools. The proportion will drop ofcourse but that only means curation will become king. With search this curation was difficult, because the value was so low you could only do it profitably if it was completely automatic, and that was difficult. An optimistic take would…

>LLMs will make curation so much more valuable, that it will be done much better.

Won't that also mean a return to a world of gatekeepers?

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#123

Post by ofrzeta »

rocqua wrote: post #72
scottbez1 wrote: post #20

Succinctly stated and something that resonates strongly with me. In the last internet revolution (web search), results started high quality because the inputs were high quality - bloggers and others just wanted to document and share knowledge. But over time, many interests (largely commercial) figured out how to game the system with SEO, and quality of search results has decreased as search's incentive structure led…

Unlike the low background radiation steel, high quality content will still continue to be created. Arguably even at a faster rate with these powerful tools. The proportion will drop ofcourse but that only means curation will become king. With search this curation was difficult, because the value was so low you could only do it profitably if it was completely automatic, and that was difficult. An optimistic take would…

Let the crawler AI discard a sample if it detects it as AI generated? That's at least quite expensive I think.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#124

Post by Eliah_Lakhin »

krono wrote: post #109
Eliah_Lakhin wrote: post #96

I think that people's believe in LLM is intelligence is closely tied to mistaken association between intelligence and the ability to speak. Parrots can speak, but they cannot reason. Moreover, evolutionary, birds learned to mimic the speech to fool other species. To fool in such way that other species would think that parrots are of the same specie. We, the humans, are smart enough to recognise that even though parro…

I believe you are vastly underestimating the capabilities of parrots or similarly intelligent birds. At least when my pet parrot manages to fool me into whatever it is he wants to get out of me that time, he does it for his own primal benefit and not because it was programmed to adhere to some strict set of ethic and moral boundaries set by legal requirements and someone else's idea of how people should think and beh…

I don't think that following the primal benefit would be a good estimation for intelligence, despite the fact that such behavior is common for most species.

What makes human specie special is the ability of some individuals to create new things that didn't exist before. That's a loose criteria of course, because most individuals just follow educated social constructs for their entire life.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#125

Post by lm28469 »

Solvency wrote: post #64
scottbez1 wrote: post #20

Succinctly stated and something that resonates strongly with me. In the last internet revolution (web search), results started high quality because the inputs were high quality - bloggers and others just wanted to document and share knowledge. But over time, many interests (largely commercial) figured out how to game the system with SEO, and quality of search results has decreased as search's incentive structure led…

This comment/sentiment/idea has already been thoroughly discussed, shared, retweeted, posted, and echoed a couple thousand times online already. Humans like you have been redundantly saying the same things in varying degrees of novelty, like this, for centuries.

And "humans like you" have been saying what you just said for the same amount of time, what's your point?

If we can only dicuss ideas which have never bee shared we can close this website right now

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#126

Post by hermitcrab »

Solvency wrote: post #116
alkonaut wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what the topic of the post we are discussing is. He is basically reiterating the point. Which is a good point. And there have been zero good arguments made (as far as I'm aware) to why this fear would be unfounded.

I'm pointing out the irony. The Internet is already saturated with us continually metaphorically JPG compressing original ideas into textual redundancy, with many people having only been exposed to those copies of copies.

I'm not surprised this isn't an original idea. But I haven't seen it discussed.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#127

Post by hermitcrab »

phailhaus wrote: post #76
hermitcrab wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution has a clearly defined fitness function (number of offspring that are produced). What is the fitness function for generated art?

Number of works that are released to the internet! At the end of the day, there is a human who has an idea in mind and is using an LLM to realize it. They are tweaking their prompt until they achieve their vision, then publishing only those successes. The resulting art can then be used with the prompt as training data.

That is assuming there is a human in the loop. What if an SEO company is using a bot to generate vast amounts of images with no human in the loop?

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#128

Post by slowmovintarget »

rocqua wrote: post #72
scottbez1 wrote: post #20

Succinctly stated and something that resonates strongly with me. In the last internet revolution (web search), results started high quality because the inputs were high quality - bloggers and others just wanted to document and share knowledge. But over time, many interests (largely commercial) figured out how to game the system with SEO, and quality of search results has decreased as search's incentive structure led…

Unlike the low background radiation steel, high quality content will still continue to be created. Arguably even at a faster rate with these powerful tools. The proportion will drop ofcourse but that only means curation will become king. With search this curation was difficult, because the value was so low you could only do it profitably if it was completely automatic, and that was difficult. An optimistic take would…

You're forgetting that we have mechanisms in place to curate curation and farm attention toward the crap, not toward quality. It will be harder and harder to break the surface tension of this gooey gelatin wrapper we've placed over creative activity.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#129

Post by spaceguillotine »

__loam wrote: post #100
aj7 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this idea very much. Is this similar to human moderation of training data?

Sure. I suspect it might be hard to actually recruit people like this considering how the people who got sampled are hugely pissed off at AI firms rn, but money will go a long way here.

Royalty agreement could make this work, every time their data gets used, they get a cut, it would be the only way i could see people agreeing to this.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#130

Post by ronald_raygun »

jimbokun wrote: post #99
ronald_raygun wrote: post #4

I always found the idea of infinitely self improving AI to be suspect. Let’s say we have a super smart AI with intelligence 1, and it uses all that to improve itself by 0.5. Then that new 1.5 uses itself to improve by 0.25. Then 0.125, etc etc. obviously it’s always increasing, but it’s not going to have the runaway effect people think.

The general assumption is that some form of Moore’s Law continues, meaning that even without major algorithmic improvements AIs will blow past human intelligence and continue improving at an exponential rate.

Yeah but there are arguments that Moore’s law won’t continue because at a certain point you can’t really get transistors closer without quantum effects messing with them
Post reply on HN