The only question I have is whether Goldman is shorting NVIDIA..
Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
21–30 of 52 posts
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#22Except for a short window around the release of GPT-4 (especially the inflated claims around beating expert trained humans at legal and math tests, as well as "replacing google"), I think people have more or less right-sized their expectations for large language models and generative AI. Clearly it can do interesting and impressive things but it's not superintelligence, and the folks predicting we're just around the…
>and the folks predicting we're just around the corner have been recognized once again as shysters, hucksters, and charlatans.
Do you think Sutskever,Hinton or Sutter are charlatans?
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#23Except for a short window around the release of GPT-4 (especially the inflated claims around beating expert trained humans at legal and math tests, as well as "replacing google"), I think people have more or less right-sized their expectations for large language models and generative AI. Clearly it can do interesting and impressive things but it's not superintelligence, and the folks predicting we're just around the…
>and the folks predicting we're just around the corner have been recognized once again as shysters, hucksters, and charlatans. Do you think Sutskever,Hinton or Sutter are charlatans?
I wouldn't take it that far myself, but I'm kind of perplexed by how the smartest people in the room at any given time have very optimistic timelines regarding when we'll have AGI. This isn't a modern phenomenon either. Both AI winters were preceded by experts more-or-less claiming that AGI was right around the corner.
It's as if the easiest people to fool are the researchers themselves
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#24The only question I have is whether Goldman is shorting NVIDIA..
Ha! +1
Although, I'd be shorting 80% of everyone else spending money with NVidia without a clear path to recover. However, given that most are (likely?) not listed, there isn't that much to short?
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#25This interview by Adam Conover, really is a wonderful discussion on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8ByoAt5gCA I was pretty amazed with GPT when it came up, but increasingly find it makes to many mistakes. I full use it as a tool in writing code, but it needs to be treated as Intellisense plus, or something to that affect, not something that will handle complex tasks. GPT and Claude make many mistakes and…
I take this view, a correct one as "Thank goodness". I don't think humanity is ready for a 'correct intelligence' yet, especially one that if existed at the level of human intelligence would likely rapidly go into the realm of superintelligence. Even if it didn't get out of human control, the humans that controlled said AI would gain an immense amount of power which would present a great destabilization risk.
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#26Generative AI appears fantastic aid for many smaller tasks where there's enough training data, and correctness of the answer is subjective (like art), or easily verifiable by a human in the loop (small snippets of code, checking that summary of an article matches the contents of the original). Generally it helps with the tedious parts, but not with the hard parts of my job. I don't have much belief in fully autonomou…
I agree with that. At work, we are about to implement a decent LLM and ditch Dialogflow for our chatbot. But not to talk directly to the client (it's asking for a disaster), just to recognize intentions, pretty much like Dialogflow but better.
Right now there are many small but decent models available for free, and cheap to use. If it wasn't for the hype, it would never have reached that level of optimization. Now we can make decent home assistants, text parsers and a bunch of other stuff you already mentioned.
But someone paid for that. The companies who believed this would be revolutionary will eventually have a really hard reality check. Not that they won't try and use it for critical stuff, but once they do and it fails spectacularly they will realize a lot of money went down the drain.
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#27Heartbreaking: The Worst People You Know Just Made A Great Point
The music, film, and game industries are about to be completely disrupted. LLMs and AGI might be hogwash, but processing multimedia is where Gen AI and especially diffusion models shine. Furthermore text-to-{whatever} models might produce slop, but Gen AI "exoskeletons" (spatial domain, temporal domain editors) are Photoshop and Blender from next century. These turbocharge creatives. Hearing and vision are simple ope…
Id agree with you on the creative industry, but disagree that that the generative AI's aren't going to do the same to just about every other industry. We were at a point where we had extremely specialized models that were useful, and now we have general models that are EXTREMELY useful in almost all contexts. Text, Audio, Video, Data Processing, etc. At least in my eyes we are at the same point with LLMs as we were with computing when you had a large part of the population that was just "not into them". As if it was like choosing any other hobby. I'm sure tons of people aren't getting much utility out of the space now, but it's not because the utility isn't there.
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#28[deleted]
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#29Except for a short window around the release of GPT-4 (especially the inflated claims around beating expert trained humans at legal and math tests, as well as "replacing google"), I think people have more or less right-sized their expectations for large language models and generative AI. Clearly it can do interesting and impressive things but it's not superintelligence, and the folks predicting we're just around the…
I don't think anyone thought it was super intelligence. I think it's impressive that we went from LLMs not being useful at all to GPT3.5 shocking the world to GPT4 becoming super useful for many things in around 7 months time. LLM progress have slowed down a bit. But I think we're just getting started. It's still really early. It's only been 1 year since GPT4 came out. Even at the level of GPT4, scaling it would have…
My text written above makes it quite clear that I don't think most people were saying GPT-4 was superintelligence, but the implication, especially from the charlatans, was there.
I'm referring to the OpenAI white paper on GPT4 that shows exam results. https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf figure 4, and surrounding text.
Clearly not superintelligence, as I would define it (see my other comment about scientific discovery, which I consider the best test), but these are tests actual humans take, and we know how most humans would score on these tests (thru some amount of memorization, along with parsing word problems and doing some amount of calculation). But many people who looked at the testing results concluded that GPT-4 was actually a reasoning agent, or that reasoning agents were just around the corner.
The press picked up on that, and my LinkedIn stream was absolutely filled with second-class influencers who thought that superhuman capabilities were not far away. For a while there, looking at some of the test results specifically on moderately challenging math problems, I suspected that LLMs had some sort of reasoning ability.
Re: Goldman on Generative AI: doesn't justify costs or solve complex problems [pdf]
#30Generative AI appears fantastic aid for many smaller tasks where there's enough training data, and correctness of the answer is subjective (like art), or easily verifiable by a human in the loop (small snippets of code, checking that summary of an article matches the contents of the original). Generally it helps with the tedious parts, but not with the hard parts of my job. I don't have much belief in fully autonomou…
I agree with that. At work, we are about to implement a decent LLM and ditch Dialogflow for our chatbot. But not to talk directly to the client (it's asking for a disaster), just to recognize intentions, pretty much like Dialogflow but better. Right now there are many small but decent models available for free, and cheap to use. If it wasn't for the hype, it would never have reached that level of optimization. Now we…
And we'll thank them for their service.