Live data from Hacker News

The AI bullshit singularity

successfulsoftware.net

101–110 of 187 posts

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#101

I always found the idea of infinitely self improving AI to be suspect. Let’s say we have a super smart AI with intelligence 1, and it uses all that to improve itself by 0.5. Then that new 1.5 uses itself to improve by 0.25. Then 0.125, etc etc. obviously it’s always increasing, but it’s not going to have the runaway effect people think.

Why would the rate of improvement follow your imagined formula?

If people are worried about a runaway effect, why would you think you can dismiss their concerns by constructing a very specific scaling function that will not result in a runaway effect?

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#102

This article is bullshit. It's on the first page only because it talks about a very widespread fear, namely that LLMs might actually become dumber because they are trained on their own output . In reality, LLMs are already trained on the output of other LLMs , as specific and well-directed training is much more effective than a disorderly ingestion of text produced by illiterate internet users. Let's not forget the d…

>In reality, LLMs are already trained on the output of other LLMs

That's a fact, but are there any studies on training a LLM on it's own output and not the output of a different LLM ? For instance, chatgpt gets knowledge updates so I understand it must be retrained somehow. What happens if the retraining data contains large patches of its own output ? Has this scenario been explored ?

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#103
post #9

Doesn't that just mean he who can get the best human feedback will get the best ai? If the quality of AI depends on not feeding on 'fake' input, the key becomes getting verified real input. My first thought was that this would create more money in genuine creativity, which would be great. But instead it feels more likely there will be much more telemetry and tracking to determine whether an input is made by you (and…

I'm curious about how the economics of human feedback will work out in the long term. I currently work in operations at a data annotation company, and my experience has given me a very pessimistic view of the industry's current state.

The MO for these vendors and the AI companies that buy their data seems to be a race to the bottom in price with little concern for quality. The current industry norm is to outsource the work to developing countries, where the cost of living is more in line with what the annotation agencies are willing to pay. While this isn't necessarily problematic for quality in and of itself, it does seem to make it harder to find candidates with the English skills required to generate high-quality RLHF and SFT training data. Furthermore, the pay offered for coding annotators is not competitive with local pay for software engineers, making it challenging to recruit skilled programmers. A lot of coding annotation is done by beginners and students.

There is certainly a lot of hype surrounding LLMs and their potential to disrupt various industries — even the US DOD has been scoping out the potential use of LLMs to assist military commanders in strategic decisions. However, if we want these LLMs to consistently perform at an expert level, they need expert-level training data. I worry that producing this data at the quality and scale required may be prohibitively expensive, and could cause a major bottleneck in model improvements long-term.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#104
The biggest threat here is not waves of bullshit, that’s nothing new.

It’s knowing who to trust.

One of the defining factors under the Stasi in East Germany, it was not that “ordinary people” could not recognise what they heard on the radio was bullshit, but that they could not know who to trust to say “that’s bullshit”. Every family has a Stasi informer, so whilst everyone knew the regieme was lying there was no critical mass event.

There are a dozen technical solutions to “bullshit”. We just need to ensure we have institutions that support us standing up to it.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#105
The assumption here is that future iterations of the technology require "BS"-riddled datasets. I question that assumption, both because the technology probably can improve solely with existing datasets and because we don't know that "synthetic" data isn't able to improve things.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#106
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'll restrain from buying into this until much more testing is conducted. There is information out there suggesting training on synthetic data is at least on par but cheaper.

On par at doing what?

https://huggingface.co/blog/synthetic-data-save-costs

At doing whatever the model is suppose to do.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#107

The article appears to have been delisted by HN. Not sure why. 'Big AI' didn't like it, perhaps?

When an article crosses some threshhold of replies to upvotes per unit of time it gets deranked, presumably to discourage political / flame-war topics.

Eg, this article still shows up on the second page. After a while, when the replies slow down, it will move back to the first page (if it's still getting upvotes).

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#109

I think that people's believe in LLM is intelligence is closely tied to mistaken association between intelligence and the ability to speak. Parrots can speak, but they cannot reason. Moreover, evolutionary, birds learned to mimic the speech to fool other species. To fool in such way that other species would think that parrots are of the same specie. We, the humans, are smart enough to recognise that even though parro…

I believe you are vastly underestimating the capabilities of parrots or similarly intelligent birds.

At least when my pet parrot manages to fool me into whatever it is he wants to get out of me that time, he does it for his own primal benefit and not because it was programmed to adhere to some strict set of ethic and moral boundaries set by legal requirements and someone else's idea of how people should think and behave.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#110

Succinctly stated and something that resonates strongly with me. In the last internet revolution (web search), results started high quality because the inputs were high quality - bloggers and others just wanted to document and share knowledge. But over time, many interests (largely commercial) figured out how to game the system with SEO, and quality of search results has decreased as search's incentive structure led…

The comparison is only valid if AI ends up being monopolized. A continuously evolving ecosystem on the other hand has a better chance of adapting to those pressures. I am sure there are search engines that don’t index the SEO crap, but I don’t remember the names, and they have other flaws. Open source AI needs to get a lot of investment for this to be mitigated. Relying on market incentives to drive development witho…

Given enough time, everything seems to go the way of consolidation. I don't have much hope that AI will be different...
Post reply on HN