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

The AI bullshit singularity

successfulsoftware.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 187 posts

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#171

Post by Jensson »

daxvena wrote: post #119
scottbez1 wrote: post #20

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…

I doubt it's going to go the same way as search. You can't run Google on consumer hardware, but you can run LLMs locally. At worse, newer models will get worse and you can just stick to older models. You could also argue that proprietary models gated by an API are better than anything you can run locally, and yeah maybe those will get worse with time. They're not going to get any worse than what you can run locally t…

> You can't run Google on consumer hardware, but you can run LLMs locally.

You can't run an up to date model locally. When I ask Googles models they have knowledge from stuff just a week ago, without using search. You wont get that from a giant local model.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#173

Post by Jensson »

mrkramer wrote: post #144
hermitcrab wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you automatically verify that an LLM isn't hallucinating?

Idk, ask LLMs researchers....they will figure it out sooner or later.

When people don't know how to do something but think it is easy, then it can often take 50 years or more for that to happen. Has happened before in this field.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#174

Post by tim333 »

vrighter wrote: post #167
mrkramer wrote: post #43

As AI advances, there will be AI and algorithms that will check LLMs and their output, sort of LLMs' verifier. It is foolish to think that LLMs won't improve to the point where there are almost no or very low hallucinations and false information. We are just at the beginning of LLMs and generative AI.

"The queen is ________" The model predicts a 99% chance that the next word is "alive" and a 1% chance that it's "dead". The llm calculates probabilities. How does it actually choose the word? It throws a weighted die. It literally chooses one at random (albeit on a custom probability distribution). So tell me, what how can you eliminate hallucinations from something that is literally designed to pick stuff at random?…

You go back and check like we humans do.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#175

Post by vrighter »

tim333 wrote: post #174
vrighter wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The queen is ________" The model predicts a 99% chance that the next word is "alive" and a 1% chance that it's "dead". The llm calculates probabilities. How does it actually choose the word? It throws a weighted die. It literally chooses one at random (albeit on a custom probability distribution). So tell me, what how can you eliminate hallucinations from something that is literally designed to pick stuff at random?…

You go back and check like we humans do.

check what, exactly? The model already did the best it could. It can't check its own work. And if I have to find out the answer myself from some other source in order to confirm the answer then that makes the model useless.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#176

Post by tim333 »

vrighter wrote: post #175
tim333 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You go back and check like we humans do.

check what, exactly? The model already did the best it could. It can't check its own work. And if I have to find out the answer myself from some other source in order to confirm the answer then that makes the model useless.

I just tried GPT4 with "is the queen alive?" and it came back with 'hold on, checking Bing' followed by "Queen Elizabeth II passed away..." That kind of thing.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#177

Post by Turing_Machine »

vrighter wrote: post #166
Turing_Machine wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess some of it might depend on how good the AI-generated content gets, and also how good the AI gets at detecting AI-generated content. If the AI was good at detecting it, it wouldn't matter if the AI-generated content sucked, yes? Even a low probability of detection would help. Let's say our algorithm is 50% likely to detect AI junk. That means that half the junk data won't make it in to model. Even 20% would pr…

ai detectors can be used to train ais to avoid triggering them. It's a race that cannot be won. ai detection can't, and already doesn't, work.

> ai detection can't, and already doesn't, work.

Then how can humans often tell that something is generated by AI?

Besides, I wasn't suggesting AI detection as such. I was suggesting crap detection, regardless of how the crap was produced.

You probably don't want crappy human-generated content going into your training set, either.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#178

Post by tim333 »

Eliah_Lakhin wrote: post #96

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…

My belief they have some sort of intelligence is more based on GPT-4 being able to figure out stuff I can't figure out myself. Things like "why doesn't this bit of code work" or "how can I write code to do blah blah blah..." It's not quite like human intelligence, better in some ways, worse in others. The better bit is it has far more information than the average human, the worse is it's reasoning is not as good as a smart human though maybe ahead of some dumb ones.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#179

Post by echelon »

__loam wrote: post #168
echelon wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's getting really tiresome to see tech bros talk about biology as if they know what they're talking about. My undergrad was in biology, "bro". I was cloning luciferace into plants using agrobacterium-mediated transfection over a decade before this week's news of transgenic petunias. I was planning to do a PhD in computational metabolomics, but life took a different turn: a couple of Google engineers saw the laser…

If you studied biology then you ought to know better.

You need to study optimization. I made a perfectly salient analogy. I'm incredibly busy working, and I'm not going to write an essay to bridge the gap for you. All of the pieces are there in front of you. Humans and the free market are an exogenous fitness landscape that is more than suitable to push these systems to their pinnacle.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#180

Post by jimbokun »

ronald_raygun wrote: post #130
jimbokun wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general assumption is that some form of Moore’s Law continues, meaning that even without major algorithmic improvements AIs will blow past human intelligence and continue improving at an exponential rate.

Yeah but there are arguments that Moore’s law won’t continue because at a certain point you can’t really get transistors closer without quantum effects messing with them

Yes, but the assumption is that Moore's law (or something like it) continues way past the point of machines surpassing human intelligence. And maybe the AIs find completely new ways to speed up computing after that.
Post reply on HN