[deleted]
ML promises to be profoundly weird
251–260 of 641 posts
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The current corpus used for training includes virtually all known material. This is just totally incorrect. It's one of those things everyone just assumes, but there's an immense amount of known material that isn't even digitized, much less in the hands of tech companies.
What large caches of undigitized content exists? Surely, not everything has been digitized, but I can’t think it’s much in percentage terms.
The amount of private data that is locked up inside private internal databases is huge. This is especially true of regulated industries. There is a wealth of data - financial data showing how to budget for things, pricing data on various products that are B2B, standard operating procedures at mature companies that have gone through various revisions, designs for manufacturing plants so people don't keep reinventing and making the same mistakes again, and on and on.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, is your assertion that apyhr was also not using the proper version? If that is your assertion, do tell me how you've come by that information. (You did notice that the author of the essay and the author of the video I linked to are not the same person, and that neither of them share a nym with me, yes?)
Hi, my position on the issue is that LLMs are powerful but may make mistakes in long context problems like coding (which the harness solves by feedback). But makes close to no (undergrad level) mistakes in questions that fit 2-3 pages. For you personally: do you believe me on this specific part on 2-3 pages? I don't know what aphyr did and tbh his whole screed on LLMs make me feel he didn't use it properly or at leas…
Neat.
So, despite the fact that it looks like you have to pay for ChatGPT Voice mode with video, [0] it doesn't count as an
example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)
[0] The page at [1] declares that the video feature is "Available in ChatGPT Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise, and Edu on mobile"
[1] https://chatgpt.com/features/voice-with-video/>
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thinking version is mostly right, but: - it searches the internet to find the answer, it doesn't "reason". I'm not claiming Google is a bullshit machine, and it's not surprising the answer is discoverable (it has to be, for the conditions of our experiment). - near the end it says "If you are building from the FF6 disassembly instead of hand-editing the ROM, the repo is already organized into separate modules and…
Wait I can't find the quote you are speaking about. Are you looking at something else? In any case - it should be clear that it did not bullshit and it got it right. So far you have not come up with anything that tells me it bullshits. I'm happy for you to give me more prompts to verify because I think you haven't used the thinking version yet and you base your criticism on the free version.
Sorry: https://chatgpt.com/share/69d6ac63-d200-8330-8c47-95a75db8bb...
Also what? The repo bit is clear bullshit.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You did not ask me for consent to use my words in your comment. I am not representing your words as mine. I am not using your words to profit off. I am not making a gain by attributing your words to you. > There has to be lines for cases where requiring attribution is required, and cases where it is not. You are blurring the lines between "using a quote or likeness" and "giving credit to". I am skeptical that you d…
You made an incredibly strong statement that is much broader than what we are talking about. I am pointing out various cases where I think that broadness is incorrect, I am not equating the two. I do not think that, if you read, say, https://steveklabnik.com/writing/when-should-i-use-string-vs... , and then later, a friend asks you "hey, should I use String or &str here?" that you need my consent to go "at the start,…
Just wanted to compliment you on your classy attitude and style, along with your solid points. It’s not easy to take that side of the debate. Cheers.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#256> It remains unclear whether continuing to throw vast quantities of silicon and ever-bigger corpuses at the current generation of models will lead to human-equivalent capabilities. Massive increases in training costs and parameter count seem to be yielding diminishing returns. Or maybe this effect is illusory. Mysteries! I’m not even sure whether this is possible. The current corpus used for training includes virtual…
I see a lot of researchers working on newer ideas so I wouldn't be surprised if we get a breakthrough in 5-10 years. After all, the gap between AlexNet and Attention is All You Need was only 6 years. And then Scaling Laws was about 3-4 years after that. It might seem like not much progress is being made but I think that's in part because AI labs are extremely secretive now when ideas are worth billions (and in the ri…
I think we will see models becoming small reasoning core which don't remember tonnes of facts but can reason with data fed to it or they can search.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#257I think the discussion has to be more nuanced than this. "LLMs still can't do X so it's an idiot" is a bad line of thought. LLMs with harnesses are clearly capable of engaging with logical problems that only need text. LLMs are not there yet with images, but we are improving with UI and access to tools like figma. LLMs are clearly unable to propose new, creative solutions for problems it has never seen before.
> LLMs with harnesses are clearly capable of engaging with logical problems that only need text. To some extent. It's not clear where specifically the boundaries are, but it seems to fail to approach problems in ways that aren't embedded in the training set. I certainly would not put money on it solving an arbitrary logical problem.
> To some extent. It's not clear where specifically the boundaries are, but it seems to fail to approach problems in ways that aren't embedded in the training set. I certainly would not put money on it solving an arbitrary logical problem.
In what way can you falsify this without having the LLM be omniscient? We have examples of it solving things that are not in the training set - it found vulnerabilities in 25 year old BSD code that was unspotted by humans. It was not a trivial one either.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Structurally a transformer model is so unrelated to the shape of the brain there's no reason to think they'd have many similarities. It's also pretty well established that the brain doesn't do anything resembling wholesale SGD (which to spell it is evidence that it doesn't learn in the same way).
Sure the implementation details are different. I suppose I should have asked by what definition of "consciousness and agency" are today's LLMs (with proper tooling) not meeting? And if today's models aren't meeting your standard, what makes you think that future LLMs won't get there?
Given the large visible differences in behavior and construction, akin to the difference between a horse and a pickup truck, I would ask the reverse question: In what ways do LLMs meet the definition of having consciousness and agency?
Veering into the realm of conjecture and opinion, I tend to think a 1:1 computer simulation of human cognition is possible, and transformers being computationally universal are thus theoretically capable of running that workload. That being said, that's a bit like looking at a bird in flight and imagining going to the moon: only tangentially related to engineering reality.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, my position on the issue is that LLMs are powerful but may make mistakes in long context problems like coding (which the harness solves by feedback). But makes close to no (undergrad level) mistakes in questions that fit 2-3 pages. For you personally: do you believe me on this specific part on 2-3 pages? I don't know what aphyr did and tbh his whole screed on LLMs make me feel he didn't use it properly or at leas…
Neat. So, despite the fact that it looks like you have to pay for ChatGPT Voice mode with video, [0] it doesn't count as an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version) That is, father_phi's use of what seems to be a paid version of ChatGPT to have a bullshit-filled conversation that definitely spans less than four pages doesn't count? [0] The page at [1] declares that the video feature is "Available in ChatG…
Lets stick to my challenge please - thinking version, find bullshit. If you can't, thats ok. Do you accept then under the constraints that the thinking version doesn't produce bullshit?
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#260There is a whole giant essay I probably need to write at some point, but I can't help but see parallels between today and the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. That meant that it was fine for things like property and the commons to be poorly defined. If all of us can go hunting in the woo…
> Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. That meant that it was fine for things like property and the commons to be poorly defined. If all of us can go hunting in the woods and yet there is still game to be found, then there's no compelling reason to define and litigate who "owns" those woods.
I mean, medieval Europe (speaking broadly) had pretty well defined property rights wrt hunting. In fact, the forester at the time was thought of as one of the most corrupt jobs, as they'd commonly have side hustles poaching and otherwise illegally extracting resources from the lands they enforced and kept others from utilizing in a similar way. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?