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

I'm becoming AI-blind

cymerys.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 533 posts

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#421

Post by tripzilch »

buzzin__ wrote: post #279
figers wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fair reply to an hour video, Scott is just so good to hear his talk is better than I can explain it... go to 24 minutes and 07 seconds. it's statistically determining what the next word should be based on all the text it's been trained on. It's not intelligence and he shows what probability it puts on each word that it chooses, but also shows a lot of the other words it was thinking of using. In a later part he shows…

Ok, I want to thank you for finally giving us a concrete falsifiable statement that we can check. I pretended Marseille 40 times before asking Luna 5.6, and the answer was Paris. So, even with concrete examples, model haters are still wrong. You also imply the claim that making the distribution of words as the possible next one visible, somehow makes the whole system not intelligent. I would say the exact opposite is…

You're confusing language use with intelligence. Fair enough, they were fine-tuned to do that, but still.

Great that it has some 700 dimensional model of language.

If that is a sign of super intelligence, then so is an encyclopedia?

Also I'm just curious how do you think it is "more intelligent" for having a vector representation for a meaningless thing such as "the midpoint between volcano and music"?

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#422

Post by tripzilch »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #299
figers wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fair reply to an hour video, Scott is just so good to hear his talk is better than I can explain it... go to 24 minutes and 07 seconds. it's statistically determining what the next word should be based on all the text it's been trained on. It's not intelligence and he shows what probability it puts on each word that it chooses, but also shows a lot of the other words it was thinking of using. In a later part he shows…

>Human intelligence doesn't get confused like that That's not really the point though right, nobody is arguing they are Humans. I have no doubt that if a flying saucer landed on my lawn and started talking to me like Gemini I would describe the aliens as intelligent.

What if it talked like GPT-2?

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#423

Post by rcxdude »

dwattttt wrote: post #285
rcxdude wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find it's particularly hard to define loosely, but then I don't think of it as a special property of humans other than it tends to be quite high in them. But we are obviously talking about different things and if you're not going to provide a definition then it's not really the basis for a productive conversation.

To address this similarly to my sibling reply, I don't have a definition of intelligence that provides value here. And your loose definition isn't doing a lot of help either, beyond perhaps noting: that Google search bar _is_ similarly "intelligent" to an LLM? Which says what, a lot about search? A lot about modern LLMs?

Similar in kind, but not degree. An LLM is a lot more intelligent than the google search bar.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#424

Post by inigyou »

causal wrote: post #30

There's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here". And when I force myself to read AI-generated text I realize I'm making my brain do creative work to impart meaning to the words. It is exhausting because my brain is literally trying to do a just-in-time rewrite of the text into something valuable. Something is dee…

It's a machine that generates plausible letter sequences that we all pretend have profound meaning.

Sometimes they happen to be correct, but you have to read them in excruciating detail to know that.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#425

Post by inigyou »

serbuvlad wrote: post #224
josh-sematic wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I hated all those Quora users that would just spew out semantically meaningless slop like increasing an important bound for the Riemann hypothesis. https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/564f962e60643842f5fcb4a17c9dbc...

It's all so tiring. Everyone decides what to think on this issue, then finds out facts to support their idea. As it stands they are massively useful tools, but for generating usable products they require either A) a lot of expert steering or B) a well defined easily verifiable target and a large compute budget. Most people are using them in mode A with good effect, the progress on math has been done in mode B, which…

Five years ago they were a niche toy for generating plausible text for entertainment. I was using one. It was an amazing party trick. Now they're popular toys thanks to their ability to entertain CEOs, and they can maintain coherence longer thanks to KV caches and more compute, and someone slapped a chat interface on top, but they're fundamentally the same.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#426

Post by inigyou »

oasisaimlessly wrote: post #328
layla5alive wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're so close... And where is the magic "uncomputable spark" located inside of you? If you say analog thermodynamic noise - then ok, if we use true thermodynamic RNG for LLM activation function, will that meet the criteria? But what if super determinism is the law of the land? Then nobody is anything but computable from priors...

Please don't use double-quotes when you're not directly quoting someone.

Please read the HN guidelines.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#427

Post by inigyou »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #213
dwattttt wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like that what a lot of people who say this don't seem to grasp, is that despite this flaw its still often capable of saying more interesting things than a lot of humans. So does the Google search bar, but I don't ascribe intelligence to it.

The Google search bar is not capable of generating original text though. LLMs definitely are - you can get pretty creative output easily.

If the Google search bar ran results through a thesaurus, it still wouldn't be intelligent.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#428

Post by inigyou »

paulddraper wrote: post #294
TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever. No matter how much investors and tech companies want you to believe that they are on the verge of super intelligence, nothing I've seen to date can…

> is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever What makes you so convinced that a algorithmic construct of neural nets cannot be "real intelligence or critical thought"?

It doesn't matter whether it theoretically could be. It matters whether current ones are.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#429

Post by inigyou »

diego_sandoval wrote: post #162
causal wrote: post #30

There's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here". And when I force myself to read AI-generated text I realize I'm making my brain do creative work to impart meaning to the words. It is exhausting because my brain is literally trying to do a just-in-time rewrite of the text into something valuable. Something is dee…

When I read AI-generated prose that is aimed at the general public, I have the exact same feeling. But when I ask Codex a technical question about coding, I don't get it at all. Codex replies to me in a very direct, technical manner, similar to the way I speak. When I ask ChatGPT to be concise and technical, I get the same effect. I think it's because prose aimed at the general public has to be very attention-baity -…

Beware it's not baiting you in the exact same manner but different particulars.

Re: I'm becoming AI-blind

#430

Post by inigyou »

nnevatie wrote: post #371
causal wrote: post #30

There's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here". And when I force myself to read AI-generated text I realize I'm making my brain do creative work to impart meaning to the words. It is exhausting because my brain is literally trying to do a just-in-time rewrite of the text into something valuable. Something is dee…

> Something is deeply wrong with AI generated output For me, it is the endless maximalism and hyperbole. Almost if the output was driven through a radio-mix compressor - too loud for the reader/listener to be able to pickup any dynamics.

It's the YouTube clickbait algorithm applied to text. Maximize interaction, at all costs.
Post reply on HN