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

GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

nian.llmonpy.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 256 posts

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#191

Post by CuriouslyC »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #182
sschueller wrote: post #112

We are all so majorly f*d. The general public does not know nor understand this limitation. At the same time OpenAI is selling this a a tutor for your kids. Next it will be used to test those same kids. Who is going to prevent this from being used to pick military targets (EU law has an exemption for military of course) or make surgery decisions?

Surgeons don’t need a text based LLM to make decisions. They have a job to do and a dozen years of training into how to do it. They have 8 years of schooling and 4-6 years internship and residency. The tech fantasy that everyone is using these for everything is a bubble thought. I agree with another comment, this is Doomerism.

Surgeons are using robots that are far beyond fly by wire though, to the point that you could argue they're instructing the robots rather than controlling them.

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#192

Post by [deleted] »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #149
davedx wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously this is a single sample but saying 90% seems unlikely. This is such an anti-intellectual comment to make, can't you see that? You mention "sample" so you understand what statistics is, then in the same sentence claim 90% seems unlikely with a sample size of 1. The article has done substantial research

That fact that it has some statistically significant performance is irrelevant and difficult to evaluate for most people. He's a much simpler and correct description that almost everyone can understand: it fucks up constantly. Getting something wrong even once can make it useless for most people. No amount of pedantry will change this reality.

[deleted]

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#193

Post by ignoramous »

nopromisessir wrote: post #187
ignoramous wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Probably this is due to confusion over what the term "AI" means. AI is how it is marketed to the buyers. Either way, the system isn't a database or simple statistics. https://www.accessnow.org/publication/artificial-genocidal-i... Ex, autonomous weapons like "smart shooter" employed in Hebron and Bethlehem: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/06/palestinian-forum-highli...

[flagged]

> a sophisticated approach to their defense

A euphemism for apartheid and oppression?

> sources are rife with bias

What's biased about terming autonomous weapons as "AI"? Or, sounding alarm over dystopian surveillance enabled by AI?

> The nuance matters.

Like Ben Gurion terming Lehi "freedom fighters" as terrorists? And American Jewish intellectuals back then calling them fascists?

> The history matters... After that, articles such as the ones you posted really read quite differently than most might expect.

https://www.wetheblacksheep.com/p/i-changed-my-mind-on-zioni...

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#195

Post by DeathArrow »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #181
sschueller wrote: post #112

We are all so majorly f*d. The general public does not know nor understand this limitation. At the same time OpenAI is selling this a a tutor for your kids. Next it will be used to test those same kids. Who is going to prevent this from being used to pick military targets (EU law has an exemption for military of course) or make surgery decisions?

I hear these complaints and can't see how this is worse than the pre-AI situation. How is an AI "hallucination" different from human-generated works that are just plain wrong, or otherwise misleading? Humans make mistakes all the time. Teachers certainly did back when I was in school. There's no fundamental qualitative difference here. And I don't even see any evidence that there's any difference in degree, either.

>I hear these complaints and can't see how this is worse than the pre-AI situation. How is an AI "hallucination" different from human-generated works that are just plain wrong, or otherwise misleading?

With humans there is a chance you get things right.

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#196

Post by DeathArrow »

sschueller wrote: post #112

We are all so majorly f*d. The general public does not know nor understand this limitation. At the same time OpenAI is selling this a a tutor for your kids. Next it will be used to test those same kids. Who is going to prevent this from being used to pick military targets (EU law has an exemption for military of course) or make surgery decisions?

>Who is going to prevent this from being used to pick military targets

When AI is in charge of controlling weapons, you get this: https://www.accessnow.org/publication/artificial-genocidal-i...

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#197

Post by chaorace »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #190
CWuestefeld wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear these complaints and can't see how this is worse than the pre-AI situation. How is an AI "hallucination" different from human-generated works that are just plain wrong, or otherwise misleading? Humans make mistakes all the time. Teachers certainly did back when I was in school. There's no fundamental qualitative difference here. And I don't even see any evidence that there's any difference in degree, either.

> There's no fundamental qualitative difference here...degree either. I've heard the same comparisons made with self-driving cars (i.e. that humans are fallible, and maybe even more error-prone). But this misses the point. People trust the fallibility they know. That is, we largely understand human failure modes (errors in judgement, lapses in attention, etc) and feel like we are in control of them (and we are). OTOH…

Expanding on this, human failures and machine failures are qualitatively different in ways that make our systems generally less resilient against the machine variety, even when dealing with a theoretically near-perfect implementation. Consider a bug in an otherwise perfect self-driving car routine that causes crashes under a highly specific scenario -- roads are essentially static structures, so you've effectively concentrated 100% of crashes into (for example) 1% of corridors. Practically speaking, those corridors would be forced into a state of perpetual closure.

This is all to say that randomly distributed failures are more tolerable than a relatively smaller number of concentrated failures. Human errors are rather nice by comparison because they're inconsistent in locality while still being otherwise predictable in macroscopic terms (e.g.: on any given day, there will always be far more rear-endings than head-on collisions). When it comes to machine networks, all it takes is one firmware update for both the type & locality of their failure modes to go into a wildly different direction.

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#198

Post by tifik »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #190
CWuestefeld wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear these complaints and can't see how this is worse than the pre-AI situation. How is an AI "hallucination" different from human-generated works that are just plain wrong, or otherwise misleading? Humans make mistakes all the time. Teachers certainly did back when I was in school. There's no fundamental qualitative difference here. And I don't even see any evidence that there's any difference in degree, either.

> There's no fundamental qualitative difference here...degree either. I've heard the same comparisons made with self-driving cars (i.e. that humans are fallible, and maybe even more error-prone). But this misses the point. People trust the fallibility they know. That is, we largely understand human failure modes (errors in judgement, lapses in attention, etc) and feel like we are in control of them (and we are). OTOH…

What you say is true, and I agree, but that is the emotional human side of thinking. Purely logically, it would nake sense to compare the two systems of control and use the one with fewer human casualities. Not saying its gonna happen, just thinking that reason and logic should take precedent, no matter what side you are on.

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#199

Post by nopromisessir »

cdelsolar wrote: post #155
feverzsj wrote: post #141

LLMs are still toys, no one should treat them seriously. Apparently, the bubble is too massive now.

Must be a pretty cool toy; it constantly 10X’s my productivity.

You said it mate. I feel bad for folks who turn away from this technology. If they persist... They will be so confused why they get repeatedly lapped.

I wrote a working machine vision project in 2 days with these toys. Key word: working... Not hallucinated. Actually working. Very useful.

Re: GPT-4o's Memory Breakthrough – Needle in a Needlestack

#200

Post by nopromisessir »

feverzsj wrote: post #141

LLMs are still toys, no one should treat them seriously. Apparently, the bubble is too massive now.

Used toys to write a working machine vision project over last 2 days.

Key word: working

The bubble is real on both sides. Models have limitations... However, they are not toys. They are powerful tools. I used 3 different SotA models for that project. The time saved is hard to even measure. It's big.

Post reply on HN