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

AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

aisnakeoil.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#201

Post by dyauspitr »

latexr wrote: post #174
dyauspitr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares. I literally use ChatGPT 30 times a day. It answers incredibly complex queries along with citations I can verify. Isn’t “this not good enough yet” line getting old? There nothing else that can estimate the number of cinder blocks I need to use for a project and account for the volume of concrete required for it (while taking into consideration the actual available volume available in a cinder block and sett…

> with citations I can verify. And do you? Every time someone tried to show me examples of “how amazing ChatGPT is at reasoning”, the answers had glaring mistakes. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad how it shows people turning off their critical thinking when using LLMs, to the point they won’t even verify answers when trying to make a point. Here’s a small recent example of failure: I asked the “state of the art…

I do. It’s not complex to click on the citation, skim the abstract and results and check the reputation of the publication. It’s built into how I have always searched for information.

I also usually follow most prompts with “look it up I want accurate information”

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#202

Post by _heimdall »

bugbuddy wrote: post #200
_heimdall wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that the single source of truth, the chain that has consensus in the blockchain terminology, is the main/primary branch? All secondary branches are works in progress that may be proposed as new commits to main. Sticking with the blockchain comparison, every side branch in got is akin to potential blocks that miners are working on.

Well, that’s it. I am done with this site.

Hah, sounds good. I still don't get your argument here, I would be curious to hear more.

My point is that git is a data store involving a genesis block (initial commit), blocks of changes/diff's, tracked in sequential order, and with a form of consensus (code reviews and merges to primary).

What is missing that makes it not a blockchain?

And my caveat here, I can't stand arguments for cryptocurrencies and have never purchased any. Blockchain as a concept is fine, and git is a blockchain as best I can tell.

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#203

Post by kamaal »

8organicbits wrote: post #194
kamaal wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything! Its like talking to a intelligent person about a topic you want to learn, but they know it good enough to teach you if you keep asking questions.

I've found it to be like talking to someone who pretends to know things, but lacks understanding when you probe further.

Probe for summarised information, don't outsource your thinking to AI.

Like even when you are writing code. Describe the solution and ask AI to write it, don't specify the requirements to AI and hope it will write it.

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#204

Post by mondrian »

jamescostian wrote: post #102
mondrian wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recent work from Meta uses AI to automatically increase test coverage with zero human checking of AI outputs. They do this with a strong oracle for AI outputs: whether the AI-generated test compiles, runs, and hits yet-unhit lines of code in the tested codebase. We probably need a lot more work along this dimension of finding use cases where strong automatic verification of AI outputs is possible.

> with zero human checking of AI outputs It can be hard enough for humans to just look at some (already consistently passing) tests and think, "is X actually the expected behavior or should it have been Y instead?" I think you should have a look at the abstract, especially this quote: > 75% of TestGen-LLM's test cases built correctly, 57% passed reliably, and 25% increased coverage. During Meta's Instagram and Facebo…

Good points regarding test quality. One takeaway for me from this paper is that you can increase code coverage with LLMs without any human checking of LLM outputs, because it’s easy to make a fully automated checker. Pure coverage may not be super-interesting but it’s still fairly interesting and nontrivial. LLM-based applications that run fully autonomously without bubbling hallucinations up to users seem elusive but this is an example.

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#205

Post by [deleted] »

r-zip wrote: post #178
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am lucky enough to have several family members who are MDs and am close to a few more. They google crap all the time. They're as unaware of things as we are. The tests they have access to are much better than anything we can get our hands on though.

They are NOT as unaware of things as we are. That’s like someone seeing a software developer googling stuff and saying “see, they don’t know much more than me”. An expert refreshing their knowledge on Google is not the same as a layman learning it for the first time. At all.

[deleted]

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#206

Post by lagniappe »

_heimdall wrote: post #202
bugbuddy wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that’s it. I am done with this site.

Hah, sounds good. I still don't get your argument here, I would be curious to hear more. My point is that git is a data store involving a genesis block (initial commit), blocks of changes/diff's, tracked in sequential order, and with a form of consensus (code reviews and merges to primary). What is missing that makes it not a blockchain? And my caveat here, I can't stand arguments for cryptocurrencies and have never…

Let it go

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#207

Post by latexr »

dyauspitr wrote: post #201
latexr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with citations I can verify. And do you? Every time someone tried to show me examples of “how amazing ChatGPT is at reasoning”, the answers had glaring mistakes. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad how it shows people turning off their critical thinking when using LLMs, to the point they won’t even verify answers when trying to make a point. Here’s a small recent example of failure: I asked the “state of the art…

I do. It’s not complex to click on the citation, skim the abstract and results and check the reputation of the publication. It’s built into how I have always searched for information. I also usually follow most prompts with “look it up I want accurate information”

> I also usually follow most prompts with “look it up I want accurate information”

That didn’t work so hot for two lawyers in the news a while back.

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#208

Post by j45 »

crackalamoo wrote: post #27
j45 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no shortage of valuable B2B products to be built through an AI API.

In principle, yes. In practice, it's a little more tricky. AI APIs give mostly human-level reliable results in many cases. But they don't work well 100% of the time, which affects trust in an automated B2B product meant to replace human labor. There are still applications that aren't meant to replace human labor, just to generate natural language very quickly. I've even seen this done in academia. And also, the API A…

Reliability is much more possible than it was 1-2 years ago.

There was an article early on I'm trying to find that said the direction of attention was counter-intuitive this time around.

Some of this is in the weeds, but those who have kept up actively trying to use the AI for 12-18 months are often saying and seeing different things because they know what capabilities have arrived while some of us hang on to the understanding from the last time we might have looked at something.

Where I think I see things differently both in what I've been able to show and deliver, is the application of this technology does need to come before, or right along with development of it. This has largely been overlooked so far

Learning how to use something new and pretty different requires trying to use it, see what it can do reliably, and what it's improving at, and helping organizations with $ to fund something they need.

The big one still, is that something that's not possible today, has to be looked at more through a lens of not if, but when. The when has been happening much quicker.

They can get much closer to working well 100% of the time.

Often by not using them at each step, or not wanting a magic wand to figure it all out.

Human labor replacement isn't anything new. Anything simple or repetitive technology in general (including LLMs) will make a dent.

The applications for natural language, or not are quite valid. I had someone in academia approach me for designing a guide to help grade in the personalized style of a professor. The irony was there's ways to do it without LLM that might equal what is posisble today, but what they were asking for was valid.

One of the big issues that's improving is not just API "reliability", but the cost of running things per request off API, or reasonably running som eor part of it locally.

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#209

Post by dyauspitr »

latexr wrote: post #207
dyauspitr wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do. It’s not complex to click on the citation, skim the abstract and results and check the reputation of the publication. It’s built into how I have always searched for information. I also usually follow most prompts with “look it up I want accurate information”

> I also usually follow most prompts with “look it up I want accurate information” That didn’t work so hot for two lawyers in the news a while back.

A while back when the lawyers used it, chatGPT didn’t do lookups and citation links.

Re: AI companies are pivoting from creating gods to building products

#210

Post by violetwhowwq »

Using herbal natural remedy was what got me tested negative to HSV 2 after being diagnosed for years. I have spent so much funds on medications like acyclovir (Zovirax), Famciclovir (Famvir), and Valacyclovir (Valtrex). But it was all a waste of time and my symptoms got worse. To me It is very bad what Big pharma are doing, why keep making humans suffer greatly just to get profits annually for medications that don't work. I'm glad that herbal remedies are gaining so much awareness and many people are getting off medications and activating their entire body system with natural herbal remedies and they have become holistically healed totally, It’s also crucial to learn as much as you can about your diagnosis. Seek options visit: worldrehabilitateclinic. com
Post reply on HN