Live data from Hacker News

Do AI companies work?

benn.substack.com

321–330 of 457 posts

Re: Do AI companies work?

#321
One thing I have found myself wondering is why this didn't play out similarly with Google in the early days.

I guess their secret sauce was just so good and so secret that neither established players nor copycat startups were able to replicate it, the way it happened with ChatGPT? Why is the same not the case here, is it just because the whole LLM thing grew out of a relatively open research culture where the fundamentals are widely known? OTOH PageRank was also published before the founding of Google.

I'd be curious to hear if anyone has theories or insight here.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#322
post #239
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* We're seeing much less of "it's making mistakes" these days.* Perhaps less than before, but still making very fundamental errors. Anything involving number I'm automatically suspicious. Pretty frequently I'd get different answers for the same question (to a human). e.g. ChatGPT will give an effective tax rate of n for some income amount. Then when asked to break down the calculation will come up with an effective t…

Yes. Numbers / math is pretty much instant hallucination. But. Try this approach instead: have it generate python code, with print statements before every bit of math it performs. It will write pretty good code, which you then execute to generate the actual answer. Simpler example: paste in a paragraph of text, ask it to count the number of words. The answer will be incorrect most of the time. Instead, ask it to out…

>I wouldn't be able to simply look at some text and give you an accurate word count

Actually this ability is at very core of human brain. Yet we humans traded most of it for the ability to speak better. Nevertheless, brain can still read very fast as well as count objects/words really fast, but as you've never really trained, this part of the brain is optimised a lot to do other stuff. Try scanning the texts diagonally, and try to come up with a random word count and what this text is meaning. On the first tries you will be making a lot of errors, but eventually, just 100 hours of training (much less when you are kid) and you will be able to scan the texts in seconds and extract the meaning and the word count very accurately. This is a real technique people use for reading fast.

The thing is – the best and most useful ability of human brain is to adapt, from the very moment it adapted to the harsh reality of being expelled from trees and living on the ground – that's how language was created in the first place, as a result of this adaptation. LLM's can't adapt today, nor doesn't need to adapt, so their mental abilities will never come close to the brain which was adapting for millions of years. Something which is not adapting will become obsolete and come to it's end, this is a fundamental law.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#323
post #216
post #147

I lead an applied AI research team where I work - which is a mid-sized public enterprise products company. I've been saying this in my professional circles quite often. We talk about scaling laws, superintelligence, AGI etc. But there is another threshold - the ability for humans to leverage super-intelligence. It's just incredibly hard to innovate on products that fully leverage superintelligence. At some point, AI…

* We're seeing much less of "it's making mistakes" these days.* Perhaps less than before, but still making very fundamental errors. Anything involving number I'm automatically suspicious. Pretty frequently I'd get different answers for the same question (to a human). e.g. ChatGPT will give an effective tax rate of n for some income amount. Then when asked to break down the calculation will come up with an effective t…

i tell chatgpt i pay 5 dollars for every excellent response, and i make it keep track of how much i spend per chat session (of course in addition to my normal course of work)

it does 2 things. 1 tells me how deep i am in the conversation and 2 when the computation falls apart, i can assume other things in its response will be trash as well. and sometimes number 3 how well the software is working. ranges from 20$ to 35$ on average but a couple days they go deep to 45$ (4,7,9 responses in chat session)

today i learned i can knock the computation loose in a session somewhere around the 4th reply or $20 by injecting a random number in my course work and it was latching onto the number instead of computing $

Re: Do AI companies work?

#324

Yes, AI companies can only work if they all somehow agree to slow things down a little bit instead of competing to release a better model like every month.

Why would this make them work?

The answer lies in why NFT companies never worked.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is not really a tech company though - its moat is not technology but market domination. If it, along with all of its competitors were to disappear tomorrow, the power vacuum would be filled in very short order, as the core technology is not very hard to master. It's a fundamentally different beast from AI companies.

How is it not a tech company? They're literally trying to approximate TSP in the way that makes them money. In addition, they're constantly optimizing for surge pricing to maximize ROI. What kind of problems do you think those are?

If someone would be able to solve TSP and surge pricing better than Uber, do you think they'd be able to dethrone them?

The reason surge pricing exists and works the way it is isn't some capitalist efficiency mechanism - in fact it's quite the opposite - it's algorithmic price fixing enabled by Uber's quasi-monopoly, and it is the very thing that enables Uber to exist in the first place as a very profitable company.

A scenario in which competition exists would drive the margins of drive sharing apps to the ground, making it a highly unprofitable exercise. I suspect investors knew this and secretly colluded to promote Uber to become a monopoly. It has very little to do with technology.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#326
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my mind, already with GPT-4, we're not generating ideas fast enough on how best to leverage it. It's a token prediction machine. We've already generated most of the ideas for it, and hardly any of them work because see below > Getting AI to do work involves getting AI to understand what needs to be done from highly bandwidth constrained humans using mouse / keyboard / voice to communicate. No. Gettin AI to work…

> hallucinates and generates invalid data The model is doing the exact same thing when it generates "correct" output as it does when it generates "incorrect" output. "Hallucination" is a misleading term, cooked up by people who either don't understand what's going on or who want to make it sound like the fundamental problems (models aren't intelligent, can't reason, and attach zero meaning to their input or output) c…

I like the term because it's concise and describes the output :)

But true, it's just the output.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#327
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Numbers / math is pretty much instant hallucination. But. Try this approach instead: have it generate python code, with print statements before every bit of math it performs. It will write pretty good code, which you then execute to generate the actual answer. Simpler example: paste in a paragraph of text, ask it to count the number of words. The answer will be incorrect most of the time. Instead, ask it to out…

> Yes. Numbers / math is pretty much instant hallucination. Programming is codified applied mathematics and involves numbers in all but the most trivial programs. > LLMs are pretty human-like in their mental abilities. LLM's are algorithms. Algorithms do not have "mental abilities", people do. Anthropomorphizing algorithms only serves to impair objective analysis of when they are, or are not, applicable. > In the pro…

> Programming is codified applied mathematics and involves numbers in all but the most trivial programs.

I don't understand that. Can you expand on it?

When does the AI or the programmer need to do math calculations?

Re: Do AI companies work?

#328
post #147

I lead an applied AI research team where I work - which is a mid-sized public enterprise products company. I've been saying this in my professional circles quite often. We talk about scaling laws, superintelligence, AGI etc. But there is another threshold - the ability for humans to leverage super-intelligence. It's just incredibly hard to innovate on products that fully leverage superintelligence. At some point, AI…

Your use of the word superintelligence is jarring to me. That's not yet a thing and not yet visible on the horizon. That aside, the point I like that you seem to be making is along the lines of: we overestimate the short term impact of new tech, but underestimate the long term impact. There is a lot to be done and a lot of refinement to come.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the Wikipedia example is a strong one as that site has it's own serious problems with "abusive monopolies" in its moderator cliques and biases (as with any social platform). At least with the current big AI players there is the potential for differentiation through competition. Unless there is some similar initiative with the Wikipedias, the problem of single supplier dominance is a difficult one to see…

I can solve Wikipedia's woes quite easily - Wikipedia should limit itself to math, science, engineering, medicine, physics, chemistry, geography and other disciplines that are not at all in dispute. Politics, history, religion and other topics of conversation that are matters of opinion, taste and state sponsored propaganda need to be off limits. Its mission ought to be to provide a PhD level education in all technic…

[deleted]

Re: Do AI companies work?

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As soon as it works, no one calls it AI anymore. So, what are good examples of some things that we used to call AI, which we don't call AI anymore because they work? All the examples that come to my mind (recommendation engines, etc.) do not have any real societal benefits.

Some examples are navigation algorithms, machine learning, neural networks, fuzzy logic, or computer vision. I personally learned several of those in a "Artificial Intelligence" CS course ~15 years ago, but most people would never think to call Google Maps, a smart thermostat learning their habits, or their doorbell camera recognizing faces "AI". It's only recently with generative AI that you see any examples of the…

Other examples are even more classical. Like state search algorithms. Alfa-beta pruning is no longer intelligence, just an algorithm.
Post reply on HN