101–110 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think this current AI hype machine came from something other than transformers?
No, but it is weird to use "modern" here. Modern suggest a longer timeframe. I would say machine learning deep NNs is modern AI. It's just not true that everything not transformer is outdated, but it is "kinda" true that everything not deep NN is outdated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think this current AI hype machine came from something other than transformers?
No, but it is weird to use "modern" here. Modern suggest a longer timeframe. I would say machine learning deep NNs is modern AI. It's just not true that everything not transformer is outdated, but it is "kinda" true that everything not deep NN is outdated.
Consider "modern" to mean NN/connectionist vs GOFAI AI attempts like CYC or SOAR.
I guess it depends on how you define "AI", and whether you accept the media's labelling of anything ML-related as AI.
To me, LLMs are the first thing deserving to be called AI, and other NNs like CNNs better just called ML since there is no intelligence there.
In Google's heyday, around 2014, I was talking with Uszkoreit about a possible role on his then NLP team. I asked "What would you do if you had an unlimited budget?" He simply said, "I do"
Nice story, but Google's heyday was probably 10 years before that. By 2014 the decline had already started.
Transformer == Modern AI? Wow, I dont know where should I start My mind literally stuck at the absurdity
It's 2024; do we really have to point out the fact that publications take liberties with headlines? It's been that way forever. Besides that, are you denying that transformers are the fundamental piece behind all the AI hype today? That's the point of the article. I think the fact that a mainstream publication is writing about the Transformers paper is awesome.
Modern AI should anything after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_workshop Not transformer
AI has been people's dream since written history. i.e., everyone in their own sense would want to invent something that can do things and think for themselves. That's literally the meaning of AI.
Subtle plug for return-to-office. In-person face-to-face collaboration (with periods of solo uninterrupted deep focus) probably is the best technology we have for innovation.
And none of them still work for Google. It’s truly baffling that Google’s CEO still has a job after how badly he fumbled on AI.
Google is an ad company at the end of the day. Google is still making obscene amount of money with ads. Currently Gen AI is a massive expense in training and running and is only looking like it may harm future ad revenue (yet to be seen). Meanwhile OpenAI has not surpassed that critical threshold where they dominate the market with a moat and become a trillion dollar company. It is typically very hard for a company to change what they actually do, so much so that in the vast majority of cases its much more effective (money wise) to switch from developing products to becoming a rent seeking utility by means of lobbying and regulation.
Simply put, Google itself could not have succeeded with GenAI without an outside competitor as it would have become its own competition and the CEO would have been removed for such a blunder.
And none of them still work for Google. It’s truly baffling that Google’s CEO still has a job after how badly he fumbled on AI.
Their wildest success at Google would have meant the company's stock price doubling or tripling and their stock grants being worth a couple million dollars at most. Meanwhile all of them had blank checks from top VCs in the valley and the freedom to do whatever they wanted with zero oversight. What exactly could Sundar have done to retain them?
Of note: “ Six of the eight authors were born outside the United States; the other two are children of two green-card-carrying Germans who were temporarily in California and a first-generation American whose family had fled persecution, respectively.”
Why would that be of note, especially in America? I think it would be an interesting observation in China or Japan, or some other country which is generally less welcoming to immigrants than the US
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but it is weird to use "modern" here. Modern suggest a longer timeframe. I would say machine learning deep NNs is modern AI. It's just not true that everything not transformer is outdated, but it is "kinda" true that everything not deep NN is outdated.
The phrasing kinda makes sense to me. Consider "modern" to mean NN/connectionist vs GOFAI AI attempts like CYC or SOAR. I guess it depends on how you define "AI", and whether you accept the media's labelling of anything ML-related as AI. To me, LLMs are the first thing deserving to be called AI, and other NNs like CNNs better just called ML since there is no intelligence there.