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

GPT is all you need for the back end

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 278 posts

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#181

Post by naasking »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #147
adamsmith143 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We clearly won't reach AGI with the current LLM approaches, for example. Have any evidence to back this up? Scaling laws seem to show we aren't near a plateau and it's not clear what kind of capability GPT-4,5 or 6 may have.

They’ve already been trained on orders of magnitude more text than a human being ever sees or hears in their entire life, without approaching human intelligence. What text is left to train them on?

> They’ve already been trained on orders of magnitude more text than a human being ever sees or hears in their entire life, without approaching human intelligence

Actually ChatGPT has an IQ of ~83, so that is quite close to average human intelligence.

Furthermore, it was trained only on digital text, arguably that would be it's only "sensory organ". It had no other senses with which to correlate terms and concepts it inferred from text, and look how amazing it is just from that.

As the other poster said, multimodal training is the next step and people are not going to be prepared for it.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#182

Post by tspike »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #147
adamsmith143 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We clearly won't reach AGI with the current LLM approaches, for example. Have any evidence to back this up? Scaling laws seem to show we aren't near a plateau and it's not clear what kind of capability GPT-4,5 or 6 may have.

They’ve already been trained on orders of magnitude more text than a human being ever sees or hears in their entire life, without approaching human intelligence. What text is left to train them on?

How much visual, auditory, and sensory data have they been trained on? What "pain" have they experienced? There are a lot of input vectors that haven't been factored in yet, and a lot of external integration points that haven't been explored.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#183

Post by jensensbutton »

auggierose wrote: post #179
personjerry wrote: post #161

Art is where an approximation is fine and you can fill the holes with "subjectivity", but engineering is where missing a bolt on a bridge could collapse the whole thing. AI is adequate for art. It is NOT suitable for engineering. Not unless you build a ton of handrails or manually verify all the code and logic yourself.

I am sorry to tell you, but AI is exceptional for engineering. Just make the AI also generate a proof that its code meets the spec. That's what human engineers should already do, but it was costly, because the tools were not good enough and the engineers not educated enough. AI is going to cut right through that Gordian knot. This should not be surprising: There is a large intersection between engineering and mathema…

Writing a spec thorough enough for AI to generate code that verifiably meets in and solves your problem means you're still programming, but specs instead of systems.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#187

Post by logifail »

auggierose wrote: post #179
personjerry wrote: post #161

Art is where an approximation is fine and you can fill the holes with "subjectivity", but engineering is where missing a bolt on a bridge could collapse the whole thing. AI is adequate for art. It is NOT suitable for engineering. Not unless you build a ton of handrails or manually verify all the code and logic yourself.

I am sorry to tell you, but AI is exceptional for engineering. Just make the AI also generate a proof that its code meets the spec. That's what human engineers should already do, but it was costly, because the tools were not good enough and the engineers not educated enough. AI is going to cut right through that Gordian knot. This should not be surprising: There is a large intersection between engineering and mathema…

> Just make the AI also generate a proof that its code meets the spec.

How would one tell if the AI-created "proof" is both accurate and adequate?

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#188

Post by meowkit »

personjerry wrote: post #161

Art is where an approximation is fine and you can fill the holes with "subjectivity", but engineering is where missing a bolt on a bridge could collapse the whole thing. AI is adequate for art. It is NOT suitable for engineering. Not unless you build a ton of handrails or manually verify all the code and logic yourself.

As an engineer and a musician I want to push back on some of this.

Missing a bolt on a bridge is hyperbolic. Your simulation should catch that long before the bridge is ever built.

Engineering is also all about approximation. Art and Engineering both build models - the differences are the granularity and the constraints. Engineering is constrained by physics and requires infinitesimal calculus to make good predictions.

AI today is inadequate for engineering (and I might say for "great" art as well), but given my understanding of the maths and software underlying these models there is zero reason to believe that AI will not be absolutely adequate in the coming decades.

In my opinion (based on my experiences), Art is just the set of processes that we haven't rigorously defined. There is a duality to Science and Art, where it seems that empiricism and quantifiable data convert Art >into< Science.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#189

Post by auggierose »

jensensbutton wrote: post #183
auggierose wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry to tell you, but AI is exceptional for engineering. Just make the AI also generate a proof that its code meets the spec. That's what human engineers should already do, but it was costly, because the tools were not good enough and the engineers not educated enough. AI is going to cut right through that Gordian knot. This should not be surprising: There is a large intersection between engineering and mathema…

Writing a spec thorough enough for AI to generate code that verifiably meets in and solves your problem means you're still programming, but specs instead of systems.

Sure, the human element will still be there. But note that the detail of your spec will converge to the natural "resolution" of your problem as the power of your AI increases.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#190

Post by [deleted] »

cmontella wrote: post #46
lm28469 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closer we seem to get the farther we actually are. We're far away from AGI, if we even can reach it with our current approaches, but the latest iterations of "AI" are really good at making people believe it'll be there in 2 years

There’s a parallel with self driving cars. We could make them go around a track autonomously in 2007, and so a lot of people were thinking “how much harder could it be to get this driving anywhere? We will have these everywhere in 5 years!” 15 years later and we are perpetually “5 years out”. Yes you can take a taxi ride in a closed circuit, but that’s much closer to where we were in 2007 than where we thought we’d b…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN