Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Karpathy’s Pelican

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 461 posts

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#441

Post by enos_feedler »

Demiurge wrote: post #295
enos_feedler wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI has deeply changed the way I think, feel and act around a computer. In the same way that dialing into the internet changed things for me. Since using ChatGPT the first time until now I have never cared once to look at these pelicans on bikes people seem to get hung up about. It could never have been a thing and nothing would change. See the forest through the trees.

What you’re saying is that you’re not interested in benchmarks. But then you go a step further and state that this particular benchmark is entirely inconsequential. That’s like telling you that if you didn’t exist, nothing would change. Even if that were true, it would still be an insensitive and rude thing to say, wouldn’t it?

Usually when I say insensitive things there are more downvotes then upvotes. That isn't the case here. I might be rubbing against a truth somewhere here.

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#442

Post by nomel »

didibus wrote: post #440
nomel wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfection is such an absolutely wild requirement for what we're seeing happen here, with the level of understanding required, from a tech that was complete fiction 5 years ago. Maybe excitement and wonder, in tech, is just something for us old guys, that watched it all be birthed. Get off my lawn!

The article makes it sound like Pelicans riding a bike are solved, and we can move on to something else. Nothing to do with excitement or wonder of the tech, it just claims one thing and I feel I've not seen that be the case so the claim seems incorrect to me.

> We're starting to leave the territory where you'd test an LLM by e.g. "create an svg of pelican on a bicycle".

First sentence of the post is clear that it's not solved.

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#443

Post by JoeAltmaier »

gcanyon wrote: post #418
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ride a recumbent trike, and the chain path is even more grotesque. I think I could draw it.

I also ride a recumbent: Catrike Expedition. I'm not sure I would get the subtleties of the chain guides correct. What's yours? https://www.catrike.com/expedition

ICE Sprint https://www.icetrikes.co/products/sprint-x-tour-recumbent-tr...

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#444

Post by whstl »

gcanyon wrote: post #331
gegtik wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that makes them human.. https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...

It's funny to me, because I have a very strong spacial sense, and a lifetime of riding bikes. To the limit of my ability to draw, I can draw a flawless bicycle, down to the interlocked path the chain takes and the hanger on the derailleur.

I can draw a very good bicycle compared to most, but I attribute that to my obsession with building, fixing, painting and reading non-stop about them as a teenager.

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#445

Post by garganzol »

ahtihn wrote: post #242
jkahrs595 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally just google “mac users more likely to pay” and you will find many such instances

Are Mac users more likely to pay? Likely yes. Are the total number of Mac users who pay higher than the total number of Windows users who pay? I kind of doubt it. Windows market share is still much higher than MacOS.

Exactly this. It's a well-known statistics that macOS users have ~2x better conversion rate into paying customers, while the rest of the equation is determined by the OS market shares.

(I am surprised that such a simple formula creates so much drama for some HN users that they are dare to downvote you for giving the single correct answer to that question)

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#446

Post by nozzlegear »

rvz wrote: post #381
nozzlegear wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh me and 1400 other people, obviously

You mean auto-liking “bots”. 240M followers vs 1400 of which 99.9999% are bots with the rest being Tesla fanatics. That is close to no-one.

I don't have a twitter so I'm not well acquainted with the bot situation, but I'm pretty sure many (most?) of the people still left on twitter like Elon and his nuggets of wisdom

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#448

Post by hdjrudni »

tripleee wrote: post #78
8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're all just impressed that it's even possible. No one is saying these are fun. I guess the next question is if they can be made fun without too much additional work with a human guiding the AI.

> the next question is if they can be made fun without too much additional work They can't. If you think about how these things are trained it's blatantly obvious fun is an impossible metric to optimize them for

I suppose. But real human-made games require lots of play testing to become fun. Maybe we just have the AI churn something out, have humans play it, and iterate. It could still speed up the overall dev time.

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#449

Post by didibus »

nomel wrote: post #442
didibus wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article makes it sound like Pelicans riding a bike are solved, and we can move on to something else. Nothing to do with excitement or wonder of the tech, it just claims one thing and I feel I've not seen that be the case so the claim seems incorrect to me.

> We're starting to leave the territory where you'd test an LLM by e.g. "create an svg of pelican on a bicycle". First sentence of the post is clear that it's not solved.

Might be my reading comprehension, but that reads to me like it's implying we're leaving the territory because it's solved and now need something harder.

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#450

Post by teiferer »

rvz wrote: post #437
teiferer wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you are coming from, but we are testing a model that can create images to create an image for us. If it can't even do that well then I'm not sure why we need to talk about horses here. Pulling things into the ridiculous isn't condusive to a good faith discussion and does not help proving pseudoscientificness which you seem to be after. (I don't belive that the pelican bicycle test is meant to be a…

> I'm not sure where you are coming from, but we are testing a model that can create images to create an image for us. Then use a model that supports multi-modal output then, instead of using models that only support raw text output to construct an image. > If it can't even do that well then I'm not sure why we need to talk about horses here. Testing a model that only outputs text and forcing it to output an unsuppor…

One way to characterize intelligence is the capability of solving problems one has not specifically been trained for.

Somebody who has trained painting animals and vehicles for decades is surely skilled at that, but is not solving new problems, so is not necessarily applying intelligence when painting something of that sort.

You can take a reasonably skilled programmer, show them some C code and ask them to write equivalent ASM code, perhaps providing them with a language reference for either, and they will be able to do this translation. Slowly, but they will get there. They have not been trained to do this, but they will "figure it out". With enough time and motivation, even non-programmers would be able to do that. That is what intelligence is and of course Claude/GPT needs to be able to do that if it wants to claim that it intelligent. No flying horses.

Post reply on HN