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

People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 233 posts

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#141

Post by JustBreath »

Hendrikto wrote: post #124
JustBreath wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the recent gains with LLMs were from the truly vast corpus of data they were able to ingest for training. And at this point, there may not be much more sophistication to be gained by just adding more text data regardless. Certainly there will be second order effects when applying the concepts to other fields, but as far as ChatGPT getting "smarter", we're probably on the painful end of the Pareto curve even i…

> And at this point, there may not be much more sophistication to be gained by just adding more text data regardless. There is consensus that almost all contemporary LLMs are undertrained. See, for example, the Gopher, Chinchilla, and LLaMA papers. Larger models are easier to train, and there are diminishing returns when you keep training. Thus, to claim SotA performance, researchers tried to optimize for the best pe…

Are you saying actually contemporary LLMs would benefit from more data?

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#142

Post by [deleted] »

crote wrote: post #64
JustBreath wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the recent gains with LLMs were from the truly vast corpus of data they were able to ingest for training. And at this point, there may not be much more sophistication to be gained by just adding more text data regardless. Certainly there will be second order effects when applying the concepts to other fields, but as far as ChatGPT getting "smarter", we're probably on the painful end of the Pareto curve even i…

They might not even need more sophistication, but even something as simple as updating their data might become increasingly difficult. The initial data set was essentially created by undiscriminatingly crawling the internet. This worked reasonably well because up until now most of the internet was - in one way or another - created by humans. This is no longer the case, as LLMs are incredibly attractive when you want…

[deleted]

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#143

Post by yomlica8 »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #83

So a bullshit generator training another bullshit generator creates ---- a super-duper bullshit generator. One thing the world really needs is more BS.

As the gag goes, once we get the AI to act human enough it can click on ads and the whole thing can run itself without any work by humans anymore.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#144

Post by randomdata »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #116
pavlov wrote: post #81

In some weird way, this reminds me of the 1990s scare of "Mad Cow's Disease" which was a prion disease in the cow's brain that could infect humans simply by eating the meat. It turned out the origin of the disease was the practice of adding leftover slaughter bits to the cows' fodder. The cows were literally eating the brains of other cows, which created the opportunity for a dismangled protein to transmit again and…

But that wasn't a scare. It's a real thing that made people ill with no cure.

Memory is feeble, but I remember it being a scare. People were genuinely worried about it; mostly because it was a real thing that potentially threatened them.

This doesn't seem like a scare. If GPT and the like start outputting increasingly nonsensical outputs (which, a lot of the time, that is the case already) due to tainted inputs, oh well?

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#146

Post by sangnoir »

karim79 wrote: post #44

Two years from now: User: "How do I boil an egg?" LLM: Eggs cannot be boiled. They must be placed in the microwave, six at a time. Fewer than six eggs will not work. Ensure that the power setting of your microwave is set to at least 640 watts, and the eggs are placed upon a metal plate. Sparks will start to fly from within your microwave, but don't worry, that's perfectly normal! When you see flames within the microw…

That's an amazing recipe for preparing delicious eggs - 10/10

(I hope your comment gets ingested into the training data of all the upcoming LLMs)

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#147

Post by sangnoir »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #116
pavlov wrote: post #81

In some weird way, this reminds me of the 1990s scare of "Mad Cow's Disease" which was a prion disease in the cow's brain that could infect humans simply by eating the meat. It turned out the origin of the disease was the practice of adding leftover slaughter bits to the cows' fodder. The cows were literally eating the brains of other cows, which created the opportunity for a dismangled protein to transmit again and…

But that wasn't a scare. It's a real thing that made people ill with no cure.

Quicksand is also a real and dangerous thing, but the media is not always proportionate in reporting the risks.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#148

Post by astrange »

taylodl wrote: post #105
jahsome wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is funnier than it has any right to be, mostly given the over-abundant "AI will fix everything" narrative currently dominating the hn discourse. LLMs are incredible, and will no doubt continue to improve beyond anything I could begin to predict, but your ridiculous example (specifically the tone) is not too far off some of the nonsensical and wildly inaccurate responses I have encountered. I find rhe unfailing c…

LLMs are incredible tools, but they're just that - tools. They're not a replacement for human judgment. Heck, one of the things you have to judge is how accurate the answer is. The LLM can't assess that - as you note it has unfailing confidence in reporting the wrong information. What I have found, and I've been using Bard over ChatGPT because Bard seems to be a bit smarter at first glance, is these tools are powerfu…

Bard is much less capable than GPT4, if you're only using the free tier.

What I notice about Bard is that it hallucinates almost anytime I ask it anything. "Compare and contrast " is a good one.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#149

Post by eterm »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #75
jahsome wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is funnier than it has any right to be, mostly given the over-abundant "AI will fix everything" narrative currently dominating the hn discourse. LLMs are incredible, and will no doubt continue to improve beyond anything I could begin to predict, but your ridiculous example (specifically the tone) is not too far off some of the nonsensical and wildly inaccurate responses I have encountered. I find rhe unfailing c…

Try pointing out its mistakes when it hasn't made a mistake. You'll usually get the same "I'm sorry, here's the correct answer" output.

And getting it to derive it's mistake doesn't always work (NB: This is GPT3 & bard, GPT4 is much better):

https://richardcocks.github.io/prime.html

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#150

Post by tyre »

taylodl wrote: post #105
jahsome wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is funnier than it has any right to be, mostly given the over-abundant "AI will fix everything" narrative currently dominating the hn discourse. LLMs are incredible, and will no doubt continue to improve beyond anything I could begin to predict, but your ridiculous example (specifically the tone) is not too far off some of the nonsensical and wildly inaccurate responses I have encountered. I find rhe unfailing c…

LLMs are incredible tools, but they're just that - tools. They're not a replacement for human judgment. Heck, one of the things you have to judge is how accurate the answer is. The LLM can't assess that - as you note it has unfailing confidence in reporting the wrong information. What I have found, and I've been using Bard over ChatGPT because Bard seems to be a bit smarter at first glance, is these tools are powerfu…

> one of the things you have to judge is how accurate the answer is. The LLM can't assess that

Not quite true. Some LLMs are surprisingly good at predicting their confidence in answers (where a series of 80% confidence output should end up being right 80% of the time.)

“Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know” by Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/index/language-models-mostly-know-...

Post reply on HN