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

Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

dank.systems

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 646 posts

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#161

Post by diehunde »

famouswaffles wrote: post #156
diehunde wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh right. But if all you do is reading programming books you are an amazing programmer? Where is all the training and practice LLMs did to become so good at coding?

LLMs (and Humans) don't get really good from programming books lol. The training and practice is the actual code they predict and learn from in the process of predicting.

Oh I see. So if someone just reads books AND actual code then they can become experts, got it. And by the way LLMs are also trained with probably hundreds of thousands of actual games not just books

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#162

Post by bigstrat2003 »

famouswaffles wrote: post #88
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Frontier labs don't care about chess. If OpenAI cared, GPT-7 could be a grandmaster+ level chess player. If the models were actually intelligent, the way that the boosters claim, they wouldn't need to be tuned to play chess in order to be good at it. That's kind of the point of intelligence, that it is generically applicable to whichever task one wishes.

If humans were actually intelligent, they wouldn't need to train and practice to play good chess. I mean, what level do you think people without any practice or training are ?

OpenAI making the next model good at chess is not analogous to a human training to get good at chess. It is analogous to God creating Human 2.0 which now has increased chess playing ability. If LLMs were intelligent the way humans are, then the models that exist right now would be able to spend time improving themselves at chess and become good at it. They can't do this because they are not, in fact, intelligent.

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#163

Post by danny_codes »

woeirua wrote: post #84
knuppar wrote: post #19

Short and to the point! Open and cheap models will undercut the big labs continuously. The blast radius won't be pretty once spending commitments knock the door.

Open models wont be open for long. No one is going to release an open model capable of chaining zero-days. Even the Chinese aren't that reckless because it will just be turned around and used against them.

As compute prices fall it gets easier and easier to make "frontier" models. So it's inevitable that commodity, open source models of equivalent capacity to today's "frontier" models will be available to the public. Remember this is just weights, anyone can download them and run it whenever they like. The only constraint is compute.

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#164

Post by bigstrat2003 »

lostmsu wrote: post #138
diehunde wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI bros: the LLM beats humans at solving Navier-Stokes and some old cypher. We are close to AGI Also AI bros: LLM can’t beat an avg chess player. But that doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t count

The fact that LLMs can play chess at any level is a strong indication we are in AGI.

No it isn't. Computers could play chess long before LLMs, better than LLMs can in fact. That didn't make them AGI.

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#165

Post by farrellm23 »

zug_zug wrote: post #141
keeda wrote: post #73

The premise in the very first point seems off: > the frontier labs are priced according to the narrative that they have produced or will in the very near future produce a fully automated drop-in replacement for most knowledge workers... Even assuming this is how the AI companies are being valued (they're not), the numbers are off. The "value" of most knowledge workers -- based on what enterprises currently pay for th…

> The "value" of most knowledge workers -- based on what enterprises currently pay for them -- is $50 - 70 trillion annually. What do you mean? The sum of ALL US salaries is $13.4 Trillion per year. According to google $65T is the sum of ALL salaries Globally (not just knowledge workers). It's not reasonable to assume AI is a drop-in-replacement for any job yet (perhaps bottom tier customer support from oversees?). >…

You are comparing company valuations to annualized revenue (as approximated by some fraction of total knowledge worker compensation). Valuations are (roughly) based on the sum of all discounted future cash flows, not just the current year’s revenue.

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#166

Post by echelon »

sdf32dsf wrote: post #125
minraws wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why respond at all for the sake of responding? We all know AI can code, but the question it all stemmed from what if it's AGI or GM level in chess on it's own. You can't just back pedal from the statement that apparently being able to code a chess engine is the same as being good at chess. I can write a chess engine that beats Magnus Carlson without AI that alone neither makes me GM level or AGI or any of the ot…

He keeps posting with a particular type of tone. He definitely needs to touch grass.

Try to embrace hacker ethos and stop hating.

Y'all seem to miss the point of this forum. Building and hacking and science and engineering.

I swear there's a whole lot of you who just like to look down instead of up. There's a whole universe up there.

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#167

Post by vivzkestrel »

- i have bearish from day 1

- i have no idea how anyone thinks the mighty next token predictor is going to eradicate diseases and eliminate poverty https://blog.florianherrengt.com/how-llms-work.html

- i also have no idea what everyone and their momma on HN is running for more than 5 mins in the name of "agentic AI"

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#168

Post by willmarch »

rsfern wrote: post #159
willmarch wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you gave a human a book or two on chess they would not become a decent player (they would be closer to 500-600 than 1100 ELO) and they would only get better after playing hundreds or thousands of games (often making illegal moves and moves that violate the rules of chess as they learn). Your assumptions/intuition about generic human intelligence feels quite incorrect, considering LLMs currently play better than a…

the discussion isn’t really about whether language models can become strong chess players though, the point is they seem to struggle to consistently make valid moves. Most humans don’t need to read two books to pick that up, just a couple lines of basic instructions

That has not been my experience with new players, they regularly make invalid or incorrect moves even after detailed instructions especially in novel situations.

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#169

Post by minraws »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #150
janalsncm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something has general intelligence it should be able to read the rules of a game and follow them. Therefore an artificial general intelligence (AGI) should be able to do this. So we have a situation where very powerful and influential people are saying we will have AGI in 6 months (if we don’t already), yet the facts on the ground are so clearly pointing in the opposite direction.

I would bet a lot of money that Astra can follow the rules of chess (perhaps if repeated within the context window). Also, this is a different argument than what I responded to.

I can write you a benchmark to prove it even with a heavy handed system prompt Astra will make an illegal move during the course of the games first few moves are generally ok since it's just throwing out learned moves.

Re: Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

#170

Post by krapp »

bluegatty wrote: post #146
lukewarm707 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ai has a >10% chance of causing human extinction, according to anthropic big heads. if that's true, you are wrong. if that's false, anthropic is dishonest. why trust a dishonest company to be worth anything?

I think that the AI people believe in their own nonsense a bit. Like - the guy on TV talking about 'AI will destroy everything' ... I don't think he's lying. I think they are like we here on HN and Reddit and a bit caught up in our own thoughts. If AI were unleashed, in raw form today, it could cause havoc. Bad. Maybe very bad but I think we'd get over it. It would probably trigger a recession (because we are in a bu…

>If AI were unleashed, in raw form today, it could cause havoc.

What is "raw form?"

Post reply on HN