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

Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

kennethpayne.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 213 posts

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#201

Post by WarmWash »

raffael_de wrote: post #187
WarmWash wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs can't really "see", so I challenge you to draw a pelican on a bike without any visual feedback, just code. Because that is how they are doing it. Vision tokens for transformers aren't really well solved yet, which is why they can smash a phd math problem and trip over a "count the cats on the chair" problem.

It's not about seeing. It's about identifying the legs of the Pelican and then transferring the concept and mechanics of riding a bicycle + geometry of a body and a bicycle. The entire task has also nothing to do with vision tokens.

> It's about identifying the legs

So, seeing?

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#202

Post by dpark »

tsunamifury wrote: post #194
dpark wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trained over time So not random. > acceptable outcome to humans And not garbage. It’s real weird to see people argue that LLM output is no different than random gibberish and then handwave over the fact that it’s clearly not with terms like “training”, as if a steam of random garbage is trainable.

Hey dpark. I quite literally created and productized predictive linguistics and behavioral vectors at Google. If you had stopped to consider what I explained; you’d understand that it’s the process of turning random garbage into increasingly acceptable outputs. Ie training the monkeys. The insight you are missing is the rule of networked scale. It turns out that any reactive node scaled enough can form sophisticated…

A human child is born with no ability to speak intelligibly. All they can do is babble. Through years of training they gain the ability to speak intelligibly and communicate in advanced ways.

The act of successful training means it’s not garbage anymore.

> So it is garbage.

This statement is ultimately meaningless and I continue to find it weird that someone who works in this space would support this view. If you fundamentally change the nature of a thing, it’s no longer that original thing. Is tan HDD still random garbage after you fill it with family photos just because that’s how it starts?

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#204

Post by andix »

varjag wrote: post #203
andix wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans learn on the job. LLMs don't. Very important difference.

Where do LLMs learn?

They get trained before release. On general information. But they don't improve while working on very specific tasks. Every new session is like an experienced human on their first day at a new job.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#205

Post by varjag »

andix wrote: post #204
varjag wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do LLMs learn?

They get trained before release. On general information. But they don't improve while working on very specific tasks. Every new session is like an experienced human on their first day at a new job.

When they get to you it's only inference. You have basic misunderstanding of what ANNs are.

They train on a billion "jobs". Which is not terribly efficient but oh man they do train.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#206

Post by andix »

varjag wrote: post #205
andix wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get trained before release. On general information. But they don't improve while working on very specific tasks. Every new session is like an experienced human on their first day at a new job.

When they get to you it's only inference. You have basic misunderstanding of what ANNs are. They train on a billion "jobs". Which is not terribly efficient but oh man they do train.

Unique skills and jobs do exist. And LLMs can't gain additional knowledge "on the job" like humans can. They are generalists, that can only be steered by prompts, skills and context. Thats all I'm saying.

This fact is currently the most limiting factor for LLMs.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#207

Post by tsunamifury »

dpark wrote: post #202
tsunamifury wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey dpark. I quite literally created and productized predictive linguistics and behavioral vectors at Google. If you had stopped to consider what I explained; you’d understand that it’s the process of turning random garbage into increasingly acceptable outputs. Ie training the monkeys. The insight you are missing is the rule of networked scale. It turns out that any reactive node scaled enough can form sophisticated…

A human child is born with no ability to speak intelligibly. All they can do is babble. Through years of training they gain the ability to speak intelligibly and communicate in advanced ways. The act of successful training means it’s not garbage anymore. > So it is garbage. This statement is ultimately meaningless and I continue to find it weird that someone who works in this space would support this view. If you fun…

Because you can do it with anything. Literally any reactive node physical or virtual can do it given scale or complexity.

You can start with garbage.

This is not human. Humans are billions of years in passed DNA learning. Babies are born to a sophistication level millions of times higher than this.

I’m pretty surprised you don’t know this.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#208

Post by raffael_de »

WarmWash wrote: post #201
raffael_de wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about seeing. It's about identifying the legs of the Pelican and then transferring the concept and mechanics of riding a bicycle + geometry of a body and a bicycle. The entire task has also nothing to do with vision tokens.

> It's about identifying the legs So, seeing?

seeing isn't necessary to understand what a leg is.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#209

Post by dpark »

tsunamifury wrote: post #207
dpark wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human child is born with no ability to speak intelligibly. All they can do is babble. Through years of training they gain the ability to speak intelligibly and communicate in advanced ways. The act of successful training means it’s not garbage anymore. > So it is garbage. This statement is ultimately meaningless and I continue to find it weird that someone who works in this space would support this view. If you fun…

Because you can do it with anything. Literally any reactive node physical or virtual can do it given scale or complexity. You can start with garbage. This is not human. Humans are billions of years in passed DNA learning. Babies are born to a sophistication level millions of times higher than this. I’m pretty surprised you don’t know this.

If you start with a fire hose of literal sewage and install a series of filters culminating in a reverse osmosis step that pours clean drinking water out, the product is not shit even if the original input was.

I don’t believe that you can’t understand the distinction between “at one point this was garbage” and “at the present time this is still garbage”. You’re clearly smarter than that.

Post reply on HN