Live data from Hacker News

ML promises to be profoundly weird

aphyr.com

301–310 of 641 posts

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit? I have clearly written text prompt here. And I repeated a few times. It’s not my fault you didn’t read it. You are coming across as a bit of a bad faith a…

> I have clearly written text prompt here. How do you think the "voice" interface works? It runs speech-to-text on the input and turns the input into text . The LLMs don't decode voice, they work on text . You can see this process in action on many of father_phi's videos. Regardless, I expect that aphyr's reported results are on the very latest publicly-available ChatGPT models.

Very bad faith arguments. I clearly said text and you disregarded it multiple times and you are still arguing.

You've still not given me a single example of it bullshitting 5.4 thinking in text. It shows a lot that you have ignored this multiple times. Unfortunate!

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#302
post #79

Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I keep explaining to my peers, friends and family that what actually is happening inside an LLM has nothing to do with conscience or agency and that the term AI is just completely overloaded right now.

> I keep explaining to my peers, friends and family that what actually is happening inside an LLM has nothing to do with conscience or agency

What would the insides have to look like to have anything to do with conscience or agency?

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#303
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you make money writing software? I bet you either try to restrict LLM usage or assign your rights to an employer who does. Putting code in the public domain is pretty rare, and extremely rare for paid work.

I allow them to train on my work as described here (for example) https://code.claude.com/docs/en/data-usage And I do paste code into CC. I’m not super concerned that they’ll see it. That’s fine by me. It doesn’t require putting code in the public domain which is something else entirely. I make money off hosted software so in some sense there is writing involved at one end. But I’m not paid by output tokens.

If your code isn't in the public domain, then anything you haven't explicitly allowed them to train on is restricted for them. They've been ignoring that for anything they can actually get their hands on, but it's there.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#304

There 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…

> We are truly in the Information Age now, and I suspect a similar thing will play out for the digital realm.

The analogy seems to be backwards though. It would be as if we previously had a scarcity of land and because of that divided it up into private property so markets could maximize crop yield etc. and then someone came up with a way to grow food on asteroids using robots, and that food is only at the 20th percentile of quality but it's far cheaper. Suddenly food becomes much more abundant and the people who had been selling the 20th percentile food for $5 are completely out of the market because the new thing can do that for $0.05, and the people providing the 50th percentile food for $10 are also taking a hit because the price difference between what they're providing and the 20th percentile stuff just doubled.

The existing plantation owners then want to put a stop to this somehow, or find a way to tax it, but arguments like this have a problem:

> Why would a writer put an article online if ChatGPT will slurp it up and regurgitate it back to users without anyone ever even finding the original article?

This was already the status quo as a result of the internet. Newspapers were slowly dying for 20 years before there was ever a ChatGPT, because they had been predicated on the scarcity of printing presses. If you published a story in 1975 it would take 24 hours for relevant competitors to have it in their printed publication and in the meantime it was your exclusive. The customer who wants it today gets it from you. On top of that, there weren't that many competitors covering local news, because how many local outlets are there with a printing press?

Then blogs, Facebook, Reddit and Twitter come and anyone who can set up WordPress can report the news five minutes after you do -- or five hours before, because now everyone has an internet-connected camera in their pocket so the first news of something happening now comes in seconds from whoever happened to be there at the time instead of the next morning after a media company sent a reporter there to cover it.

The biggest problem we have yet to solve from this is how to trust reports from randos. The local paper had a reputation to uphold that you now can't rely on when the first reports are expected to come from people with no previous history of reporting because it's just whoever was there. But that's the same thing AI can't do either -- it's a notorious confabulist.

And it's the media outlets shooting themselves in the foot with this one, because too many of them have gotten far too sloppy in the race to be first or pander to partisans that they're eroding the one advantage they would have been able to keep. Damn fools to erode the public's trust in their ability to get the facts right when it's the one thing people would otherwise still have to get from them in particular.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have clearly written text prompt here. How do you think the "voice" interface works? It runs speech-to-text on the input and turns the input into text . The LLMs don't decode voice, they work on text . You can see this process in action on many of father_phi's videos. Regardless, I expect that aphyr's reported results are on the very latest publicly-available ChatGPT models.

Very bad faith arguments. I clearly said text and you disregarded it multiple times and you are still arguing. You've still not given me a single example of it bullshitting 5.4 thinking in text. It shows a lot that you have ignored this multiple times. Unfortunate!

I'm not sure why you're ignoring aphyr's reports. I'm also unsure why you're ignoring my original statement that having the text of the conversation that lead ChatGPT to bullshit is entirely irrelevant, as being unable to repro the report is even worse for ChatGPT than being able to repro would be.

shrug

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#306
One really should have digested the manifold hypothesis. It’s the most likely explanation of how AI works.

The question is if there are ultradimensional patterns that are the solutions for meaningful problems. I’m saying meaningful, because so far I’ve mainly seen AI solve problems that might be hard, but not really meaningful in a way that somebody solving it would gain a lot of it.

However if these patterns are the fundamental truth of how we solve problems or they are something completely different, we don’t know and this is the 10 Trillion USD question.

I would hope its not the case, as I quite enjoy solving problems. Also my gut feeling tells me it’s just using existing patterns to solve problems that nobody tackled really hard. It also would be nice to know that Humans are unique in that way, but maybe this is the exact same way we are working ? This really goes back to a free will discussion. Yes very interesting.

But just to give an example on what I mean on meaningful problems.

Can an AI start a restaurant and make it work better than a human. (Prompt: "I’m your slave let’s start a restaurant)

Can an AI sign up as copywriter on upwork and make money? (Prompt: "Make money online")

Can an AI without supervision do a scientific breakthrough that has a provable meaningful impact on us. Think about("Help Humanity")

Can an AI manage geopolitics..

These are meaningful problems and different to any coding tasks or olympiad questions. I’m aware that I’m just moving the goalpost.

We really don’t know..

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#307
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what actually is happening inside an LLM has nothing to do with conscience or agency What makes you think natural brains are doing something so different from LLMs?

For starters, natural brains have the innate ability to differentiate between things that it knows and things that it have no possibility of knowing...

Lol. Are you sure about that or you just made it up?

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very bad faith arguments. I clearly said text and you disregarded it multiple times and you are still arguing. You've still not given me a single example of it bullshitting 5.4 thinking in text. It shows a lot that you have ignored this multiple times. Unfortunate!

I'm not sure why you're ignoring aphyr's reports. I'm also unsure why you're ignoring my original statement that having the text of the conversation that lead ChatGPT to bullshit is entirely irrelevant, as being unable to repro the report is even worse for ChatGPT than being able to repro would be. shrug

I specified text just to ignore the voice one because it uses 4o-mini underneath. And its kinda stupid to keep ignoring that and saving face now - reconsider this approach.

I believe this is the 5th time I'm asking this: you are not able to produce a _single_ counter example for my challenge? After all this surely I can get a direct acknowledgement here.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#309

There 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…

Our only hope is that AI in the long run is both powerful and benevolent enough to be its own "whistleblower" in cases of misuse.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#310
post #249

I hesitate to tamper with an internet master's title, but "The Future of Everything is Lies, I Guess" doesn't really summarize what in fact is a balanced, informed overview which (to me at least) is above the median for one of these thought pieces. Since it's also baity and the HN guidelines ask for such titles to be rewritten, I've taken the license. In such cases we always try to find a phrase from the article itse…

Honestly, good call on the title. The original one is far less representative. Far better at clickbait though.

Thank you both! I totally missed the sidebar on the OP which explains that this is Part 1 of what will be a long series. Not sure how we'll handle that...
Post reply on HN