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

This content is for human consumption only

orbistertius.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#21

Post by freehorse »

GaggiX wrote: post #13
mmiliauskas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean "not particularly expensive", GPT-3 I think costs like $4M to train. And that is just the pre-training part.

I'm obviously not talking about training a 173B model from scratch ahah If you want to train a model from scratch I was talking more about a small 64x64 DDIM models (that you can then upscale with openly available upscaler DDIM models and maybe finetune). In most cases however it's better to just finetune the models available, the point is that pressuring companies to not train a model on the data they host doesn't r…

But why should they be afraid of these models? These models will not gonna be competitive enough compared to the models of the larger companies, and considering that training cost > inference cost, it will never be competitive in market sense to small-scale train different models from scratch. So these models are never gonna reach the impact of the larger ones in the end.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#22

Post by Xenoamorphous »

XorNot wrote: post #8
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #4

> This is the worst imaginable end-stage capitalism dystopia, in which the only ways to make money are the grueling physical jobs like nursing and commercial kitchens (if you work in a field like that, you have my deepest respect). Having worked a physical job on a scaffold 13 stories in the air while wearing a respirator on a sweltering summer day and grinding out mortar joints, I can’t help but feel that this would…

I'm just plain extremely unsympathetic to the entitled, rent-seeking view of the world that a bunch of white-collar workers turn out to have: "help someone is going to automate my job and other jobs might be harder". Like...I am a white collar worker, but god damn I cannot think of a more pathetic complaint.

> help someone is going to automate my job and other jobs might be harder

More like “help, someone is going to automate my job and there won’t be jobs for everyone”

In a hypothetical scenario where 30% of the current workforce is decimated by AI (white collar jobs), what makes you think the demand for plumbers, aircon unit installers or fruit pickers is goong to go up and absorb all those lost jobs?

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#24

Post by GaggiX »

freehorse wrote: post #21
GaggiX wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm obviously not talking about training a 173B model from scratch ahah If you want to train a model from scratch I was talking more about a small 64x64 DDIM models (that you can then upscale with openly available upscaler DDIM models and maybe finetune). In most cases however it's better to just finetune the models available, the point is that pressuring companies to not train a model on the data they host doesn't r…

But why should they be afraid of these models? These models will not gonna be competitive enough compared to the models of the larger companies, and considering that training cost > inference cost, it will never be competitive in market sense to small-scale train different models from scratch. So these models are never gonna reach the impact of the larger ones in the end.

By finetuning a model (correctly) you will retain its capability while shifting the distribution to what you desire, as I have said before "it is only because of these people that it is worth using models like SD".

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#25

Post by stakhanov »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #22
XorNot wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just plain extremely unsympathetic to the entitled, rent-seeking view of the world that a bunch of white-collar workers turn out to have: "help someone is going to automate my job and other jobs might be harder". Like...I am a white collar worker, but god damn I cannot think of a more pathetic complaint.

> help someone is going to automate my job and other jobs might be harder More like “help, someone is going to automate my job and there won’t be jobs for everyone” In a hypothetical scenario where 30% of the current workforce is decimated by AI (white collar jobs), what makes you think the demand for plumbers, aircon unit installers or fruit pickers is goong to go up and absorb all those lost jobs?

I think, in some way or another, the economy will settle into an equilibrium where everyone is doing some kind of paid work, but if we automate away the enjoyable work and the difficult-to-automate work happens to be the type of work that's less enjoyable, then all our lives will be less enjoyable.

We've seen this play out in history with the various productivity-increasing technologies in manufacturing. I imagine that being a member of a crafts guild producing their wares in Renaissance Florence was a more fulfilling existence than being a modern assembly line worker who basically just fills in the difficult-to-automate gaps between the machines on an assembly line.

There are essentially two ways of using technology: One is where technology becomes an extension of your body (and, with AI, your brain) and puts more powerful means at your disposal to do what you want to do and have an effect on the world. The other is where your role in life is reduced to being a mere part in a machine -- someone else's machine.

And it's not in each individual's power to freely pick and choose how they will end up relating to technology. This is rather the result of societal-level forces, and there will be many people who will see their quality of life diminished by recent advances in technology.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#26

Post by marak830 »

stan3223 wrote: post #19
rasengan0 wrote: post #3

[flagged]

"Large language models are trained on massive datasets of text data" Maybe time for internet to start moving away from text and start making it more expensive for mass data collection systems.

That wouldn't exactly help people who rely on screen readers and such.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#27

Post by doesnt_know »

jachee wrote: post #11
doesnt_know wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Writer/Artist/Dev: “I think publishing this work will improve the world in some way. I’ll put it out there on the public internet for all the world to see for free.” Surely you must know this is a bullshit argument right? Almost everyone that publishes their work publicly on the internet publishes it under a particular license. Yes, there are some that decide to publish under the equivalent of the public domain or…

Food for thought: Under what license did you publish this comment?

There is nothing to think about. All rights reserved except those provided specifically to Y Combinator as outlined by the "User Content Transmitted Through the Site" section of https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#29

Post by tonyedgecombe »

doesnt_know wrote: post #9
jachee wrote: post #2

Writer/Artist/Dev: “I think publishing this work will improve the world in some way. I’ll put it out there on the public internet for all the world to see for free.” AI Model Training: *processes said work.* This will improve the world! Writer/Artist/Dev: Noooo! Not like that!

> Writer/Artist/Dev: “I think publishing this work will improve the world in some way. I’ll put it out there on the public internet for all the world to see for free.” Surely you must know this is a bullshit argument right? Almost everyone that publishes their work publicly on the internet publishes it under a particular license. Yes, there are some that decide to publish under the equivalent of the public domain or…

>Yes, there are some that decide to publish under the equivalent of the public domain or a CC0 license, but the vast majority of writing, art and code is licensed under specific conditions and for the most part they retain the full rights to the work.

Perhaps we need a licence that precludes use for training AI's. I don't know how you could enforce that though.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#30

Post by JumpCrisscross »

stakhanov wrote: post #25
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> help someone is going to automate my job and other jobs might be harder More like “help, someone is going to automate my job and there won’t be jobs for everyone” In a hypothetical scenario where 30% of the current workforce is decimated by AI (white collar jobs), what makes you think the demand for plumbers, aircon unit installers or fruit pickers is goong to go up and absorb all those lost jobs?

I think, in some way or another, the economy will settle into an equilibrium where everyone is doing some kind of paid work, but if we automate away the enjoyable work and the difficult-to-automate work happens to be the type of work that's less enjoyable, then all our lives will be less enjoyable. We've seen this play out in history with the various productivity-increasing technologies in manufacturing. I imagine th…

> imagine that being a member of a crafts guild producing their wares in Renaissance Florence was a more fulfilling existence than being a modern assembly line worker who basically just fills in the difficult-to-automate gaps between the machines on an assembly line

I was in Murano last summer. They probably have more global demand for their handmade wares than they’ve ever had in history.

Post reply on HN