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

ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 245 posts

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#151

Post by selfhoster11 »

nicce wrote: post #93
Someone1234 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more interested in Open Source/Local LLM's ability to consume private data as an internal knowledgeable. For example, feed in your entire source repo(s) and then ask it questions about where something is or how it works.

You would still need a huge training and data set for model before it can do something useful from your private data.

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is a good stopgap measure. It avoids the need for a lot of work on customising the LLM by supplying the relevant data via vector DB queries and letting LLM remain as a "calculator for words" that will just rephrase/extract the answer from the DB query result.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#152

Post by selfhoster11 »

keyle wrote: post #77
satvikpendem wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I think open source LLMs are the ones that will actually persist throughout the commercial enshittification and reign supreme at the end.

I'm with you but I'm yet to find a solution that isn't both rocket science and requiring rocket hardware.

Not in my experience. For an ML hobbyist, I don't have particularly strong hardware - around 40 GB of system RAM and a very small GPU with 8GB of RAM. I can run all sizes of models, up to and including 70B (albeit slowly). 13 is definitely the most usable on this particular hardware, given the trade-off between model capabilities and generation speed.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#153

Post by HWR_14 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #121
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even deleted! Actively stolen. No one has yet grappled with the reality that especially in the realm of generative art, these models do not work without a basis of absolutely stressful amounts of stolen artwork to train them. They simply do. Not. Exist. Without that baseline unethical contribution that tons of artists made without their knowledge and certainly without their consent. None of the major figures behi…

Oh please. First of all, how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures. Supposing that you buy into the theory that you can, copyright was created to further the arts and sciences; it’s in the US constitution. The point isn’t to control your work — it’s to live in a richer society. And it’s not even clear that training a model counts as infringement. Being able to recite a quote from a book is different than…

> I take a dim view of people trying to frame researchers as criminals. We’re not. We want to further science. That’s all

Criminality and perusing science not only aren't exclusive, they aren't even related. Would you try that same argument if you were stealing physical goods for your experiments?

We have tons of example of unethical and illegal things being done in the name of science. IRBs didn't come into existence because being a scientist wanting to further science automatically makes you moral or justified. I trust I don't need to list the various experiments.

Meanwhile, to return to what King said. That something doesn't worry someone worth more than half a billion dollars with a 5 decade career at the top of their game and iconic name recognition is not an indication that the thing is irrelevant, especially to people in the same line of work.

You can say you don't like copyright, but that's not what you are focusing on.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#154

Post by sixstringtheory »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #121
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even deleted! Actively stolen. No one has yet grappled with the reality that especially in the realm of generative art, these models do not work without a basis of absolutely stressful amounts of stolen artwork to train them. They simply do. Not. Exist. Without that baseline unethical contribution that tons of artists made without their knowledge and certainly without their consent. None of the major figures behi…

Oh please. First of all, how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures. Supposing that you buy into the theory that you can, copyright was created to further the arts and sciences; it’s in the US constitution. The point isn’t to control your work — it’s to live in a richer society. And it’s not even clear that training a model counts as infringement. Being able to recite a quote from a book is different than…

> how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures

Ideas and artwork are qualitatively different. Artwork, it’s right there in the name. It takes work to create pictures/art. It’s more serious than stealing just ideas, which I agree are economically worthless until executed.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#155

Post by simonjgreen »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #119
Gigachad wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm almost hoping for some enshittification. It's so depressing seeing how many skills and jobs have been instantly devalued. Take a look at the artist communities and it's total depression that peoples life passion and source of income has just been deleted over the course of a few months. We aren't talking about burger flipping and checkout scanners. This is a creative pursuit which takes years of grinding to becom…

Not even deleted! Actively stolen. No one has yet grappled with the reality that especially in the realm of generative art, these models do not work without a basis of absolutely stressful amounts of stolen artwork to train them. They simply do. Not. Exist. Without that baseline unethical contribution that tons of artists made without their knowledge and certainly without their consent. None of the major figures behi…

How does a Human generate their ideas, styles, etc? We absorb everything we come in to contact with too.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#156

Post by helloplanets »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #121
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even deleted! Actively stolen. No one has yet grappled with the reality that especially in the realm of generative art, these models do not work without a basis of absolutely stressful amounts of stolen artwork to train them. They simply do. Not. Exist. Without that baseline unethical contribution that tons of artists made without their knowledge and certainly without their consent. None of the major figures behi…

Oh please. First of all, how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures. Supposing that you buy into the theory that you can, copyright was created to further the arts and sciences; it’s in the US constitution. The point isn’t to control your work — it’s to live in a richer society. And it’s not even clear that training a model counts as infringement. Being able to recite a quote from a book is different than…

One tangentially related trial would be Pharrell Williams v. Bridgeport Music [0], where Marvin Gaye's family sued Pharrell Williams with the following claim:

> Gaye's family argued that the songs were not merely stylistically similar; instead, they claim that "many of the main vocal and instrumental themes of "Blurred Lines" are rooted in "Got to Give It Up"; namely, the signature phrase, vocal hook, backup vocal hook, their variations, and the keyboard and bass lines" and "the substantial similarities are the result of many of the same deliberate creative choices made by their respective composers."

And they won. I don't agree with the outcome, but I do think it's an interesting benchmark. Obviously, this trial would've never been a thing if "Blurred Lines" wasn't a big hit. Something simlar could apply to a major brand using text-to-image generated material that was strikingly similar to a prominent photographer or artist, if they sued.

I wonder what's going to be the first big case having to deal with this.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor...

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#157

Post by squirrel6 »

Gigachad wrote: post #106
keyle wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually worried of the inevitable enshitification of Open AI. Right now, GPT 4 is great and I use it every day. I rely less and less on Google and save a ton of time. Google has gone downhill hard for a few years, thanks to all these silly blog engines like medium, substack and the like. I'm really worried and would like to 'freeze' GPT 4 as is, at least with the data up to Sep 2021, and for them to not change o…

I'm almost hoping for some enshittification. It's so depressing seeing how many skills and jobs have been instantly devalued. Take a look at the artist communities and it's total depression that peoples life passion and source of income has just been deleted over the course of a few months. We aren't talking about burger flipping and checkout scanners. This is a creative pursuit which takes years of grinding to becom…

There’s a lot of “art” that is really just graphic design at its core. Creatives at-large are certainly negatively impacted with respect to the commercial viability of their skills.

However, artists who express something in their own unique way (not necessarily in a commercial context) are not necessarily threatened by generative AI. I do think artists can even make use of generative AI if it helps their own artistic process. There has been more thoughtful writing to this effect elsewhere.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#158

Post by WhrRTheBaboons »

Kiro wrote: post #142
HWR_14 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, I literally asked a factual question of Google (several times, although similar questions) and didn't get a bard generated response. Strange to read "Google searches aren't doing this for me" as "they are doing it for me and I don't like it"

So what was the question?

Bard isnt available in EU (for example)

No question you ask will return an answer

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#159

Post by moonchrome »

Gigachad wrote: post #106
keyle wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually worried of the inevitable enshitification of Open AI. Right now, GPT 4 is great and I use it every day. I rely less and less on Google and save a ton of time. Google has gone downhill hard for a few years, thanks to all these silly blog engines like medium, substack and the like. I'm really worried and would like to 'freeze' GPT 4 as is, at least with the data up to Sep 2021, and for them to not change o…

I'm almost hoping for some enshittification. It's so depressing seeing how many skills and jobs have been instantly devalued. Take a look at the artist communities and it's total depression that peoples life passion and source of income has just been deleted over the course of a few months. We aren't talking about burger flipping and checkout scanners. This is a creative pursuit which takes years of grinding to becom…

> but the rate of progression feels like they will soon

The rate of progression seems to be logarithmic - so we got "something looks plausible" but to get that last 10% it's probably going to cost more in HW than just using humans, unless there's some breakthroughs. Just like self driving cars.

My impressions at least looking at the developments from a sort of technical perspective - they are hitting all kinds of scaling problems - both in terms of data available, runtime complexity, hardware available, etc.

nVidia raking it in is a perfect example of how inefficient the whole thing is. Models seem to be doing fairly simple math computation (nowhere near the complexity of a general purpose GPU core required), things are limited by memory bandwidth and memory available. I'm sure a better hardware design specifically for transformer inference could make it cheaper and faster. But it seems like anything like that is years out for general market and nVidia is raking in on selling repurposed GPU architectures, and nobody else can even compete with that based on software stack alone.

People selling us on AI replacing software developers are getting fleeced for billions because they can't port their software stack to similar hardware from a different vendor...

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#160

Post by kypro »

Gigachad wrote: post #106
keyle wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually worried of the inevitable enshitification of Open AI. Right now, GPT 4 is great and I use it every day. I rely less and less on Google and save a ton of time. Google has gone downhill hard for a few years, thanks to all these silly blog engines like medium, substack and the like. I'm really worried and would like to 'freeze' GPT 4 as is, at least with the data up to Sep 2021, and for them to not change o…

I'm almost hoping for some enshittification. It's so depressing seeing how many skills and jobs have been instantly devalued. Take a look at the artist communities and it's total depression that peoples life passion and source of income has just been deleted over the course of a few months. We aren't talking about burger flipping and checkout scanners. This is a creative pursuit which takes years of grinding to becom…

The most depressing thing is talking to children about potential careers at the moment... My girlfriend have a couple of younger siblings, one of them loves art and draws endless – he really wants to design characters for cartoons and video games. The other loves programming and wants be a developer. I've always encouraged these passions of theirs, telling them if they work hard they can do the things they love as a job and get paid well for it. I don't know what to tell them anymore...

I worry that over the last few decades we've been going through a golden age of career opportunities without really appreciating it. With a few exceptions no career considered desirable has been fully automated, and at the same time the variety of jobs that we can do has grown almost exponentially. I mean even something like farming where there's been a lot of technological innovation we still absolutely need farmers – will the same be said about graphic designers in say 5-10 years? Perhaps we'll need a few people prompting the tools, but will it actually make sense for anyone to physically draw anything?

For the most part in the past people had to do whatever job they could. I worry we may be returning to that world. It seems likely there will still be service jobs where human interaction is valued, but eventually it seems all jobs that don't require that human presence will eventually be automated. Although, we're probably still quite a long way off all manual labour jobs being automated fully.

Post reply on HN