Live data from Hacker News

Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

salon.com

11–20 of 164 posts

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#11
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, this is not the best application of LLMs It is, however, the commercial application everyone - including search engines! - is implementing.

I can see LLMs as a novel front-end for a traditional search engine.

However, this is not the best application of LLMs.

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#13
post #7

It's really easy to get an LLM to hallucinate by asking an open ended question - the type typically answered by a Google search or checking Wikiedpia. However, this is not the best application of LLMs. This criticism is getting old. LLMs are great at: - Text synthesis given all of the facts in a prompt (expand these bullet points) - Summarization (condense this text) - Data extraction (fit this data into this schema)…

> However, this is not the best application of LLMs It is, however, the commercial application everyone - including search engines! - is implementing.

To be fair, the ones I've seen use a form of point 1 (giving all facts in the prompt) by allowing for searching the web, which becomes a version of point 2 (summarization).

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#14
The first steam engines were also written off as being less powerful than a horse.

The first electric motors were written off as being less powerful than steam engines.

So it goes.

I think both of these views can be true at the same time: ChatGPT (or, LLMs really) are revolutionary and they won't revolutionize the world the way technologists/researchers say.

Early adopters will use the technology and do amazing things with it. Unions are already pushing back on AI (truckers, federal employees in Canada, writers in Hollywood) and maybe rightly so. At the same time, dismissing these technologies because they don't meet your high standards yet is probably foolish.

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#15
The have completely no idea what they are writing about But maybe this is a good part. We’ll have less uneducated journalists and more opinions of actual specialists. Making those articles sound fresh, interesting, and easy to read with the help of LLMs.

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#17
post #3

This critique asserts that ChatGPT propagates inaccuracies. While there may be instances where this holds true, the given example does not substantiate this claim. The article alleges that ChatGPT stated Russia has launched bears into space, an assertion that is evidently false. However, my own interaction with ChatGPT 4.0 contradicts this. When I posed the same question, the AI unequivocally responded that no nation…

Maybe the conversation history lead to "bear" having a less mainstream definition and made the response contextually correct.

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#19

It's really easy to get an LLM to hallucinate by asking an open ended question - the type typically answered by a Google search or checking Wikiedpia. However, this is not the best application of LLMs. This criticism is getting old. LLMs are great at: - Text synthesis given all of the facts in a prompt (expand these bullet points) - Summarization (condense this text) - Data extraction (fit this data into this schema)…

> - Fiction (virtual characters, scripts, etc.)

I've found it bad for this, does not generate something I'd actually read.

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#20

Sure, anyone that uses ChatGPT knows it's currently not perfect. But there's a presumption that these tools are going to keep improving over time. Which is presumably why the AI hype is so strong. Whether AI ends up displacing people from their jobs in the long term, well, that's impossible to know. Just because no technological advancement has ever done that in the past doesn't mean it will never happen in the futur…

As long as the accuracy of an LLM’s output is unknowable, there’s going to be a pretty hard limit on the kinds of jobs these tools can “replace”. And its not at all clear that this fundamental problem can be fixed at all with the current approach.
Post reply on HN