Live data from Hacker News

AI isn’t good enough

skventures.substack.com

211–220 of 374 posts

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ignoring the fact that a toddler, once their musculature develops, is able to learn to walk after several tries. Show me a humanoid robot that can do that.

You're missing all of the subskills that are developed along the way. They don't just grow, braindead, and twitch a couple times until they get the hang of walking. Its a joy to watch a child grow up, but also its super interesting watching them figure out the most basic shit. Would highly recommend if you get the opportunity.

I would love it if AI is raised like that but so far it seems to be not the case. :|

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who has worked a bit with a top LLM thinks that they learn world models. Otherwise, what they are doing would be impossible. I've used them for things that are definitely not on the web, because they are brand new research. They are definitely able to apply what they've learnt in novel ways.

What really resonated with me is the following observation from a fellow HNer (I forgot who): In many cases, we humans have structured our language such that it encapsulates reality very closely. For these cases, when an LLM learns the language it will by construction appear to have a model of the world. Because we humans already spent thousands of years and billions of actually intelligent minds building the languag…

Perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

But in a sense when YOU learned language YOU also learned a world model. For instance when your teacher explains to you the difference between the tenses (had, have, will have) you realize that time is a thing that you need to think about. Even if you already had some sense of this, you now have it made explicit.

Why should we say the LLM hasn't learned a world model when it's done what a kid has done, and everyone agrees the kid understands things?

From what I see, there are some things it hasn't learned correctly. Notably with limbs, it doesn't know how fingers and elbows work, for some reason. But it does know something about what they should look like, and so we get these hilarious images. But I also don't see why it shouldn't overcome this eventually, since it's come pretty far as it is.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ignoring the fact that a toddler, once their musculature develops, is able to learn to walk after several tries. Show me a humanoid robot that can do that.

At that point, the toddler's still run years of self-reinforced learning (as well as learning supported by parents, and observing other humans solving the problem) on controlling their muscles... and again, think of the computational power expended over that time (by a computational approach that's been highly-optimised over millions of years of trial-and-error recursive descent style). Our intellect and capabilities…

Human is not the most efficient learner for walking. See other animals, e.g. deer or elephant, that walk straight after being born. Relevant since the discussion is not about human learning but animal learning in nature.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#214
> There is a persistent structural imbalance in the U.S. workforce: too few people for all the jobs

Lies. If the minimum wage increased proportional to inflation, none of these "jobs" would exist.

The McDonalds sign-on bonus is nothing but a loan, just like all sign-on bonuses with a retention requirement. Such arrangements merely require that minimum wage is low enough to partition that compensation out of the base wage, a modern American financial industry to efficiently enforce the contracts, and a society with no remaining semblance of dignity in sight.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an established technique with papers written on the topic and everything. Anecdotally I tested this by having GPT4 translate Acadian cuneiform — which it can just barely do. I had it do this four times and it returned four gibberish answers. I then prompted it with the source plus the four attempts and asked for a merged result. It did it better than the human archeologists did! More readable and consistent. I…

Makes sense, it's too obvious to not have already been studied :) Do you know what I might search for to find info on it? >Expensive now… soon to be standard? With translation, better safe than sorry? It's a very important field and preserves human history so, why not?

It's trivial to test, just use ChatGPT yourself and ask it to solve the same problem several times in new sessions. Then paste in all attempts and ask for a combined result.

The main issue is context length: if you use 4 attempts you have to have to fit in the original question, four temporary answers, and the final answer. So that's 6 roughly equal sized chunks of text. With GPT4's 8K limit that's just 1300 tokens per chunk, or about 900 words. That's not a lot!

The LLMs with longer context windows are not as intelligent, and tend to miss details or they don't follow instructions as accurately.

Right now this is just a gimmick that demonstrates that more intelligence can be squeezed out of even existing LLMs...

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Ng, and quite a few other top AI researchers believe that current LLMs (and incoming waves of multimodal LFMs) learn world models; they are not simply 'stochastic parrots'. If one feeds GPT-4 a novel problem that does not require multi-step reasoning or very high precision to solve, it can often solve it.

Anyone who has worked a bit with a top LLM thinks that they learn world models. Otherwise, what they are doing would be impossible. I've used them for things that are definitely not on the web, because they are brand new research. They are definitely able to apply what they've learnt in novel ways.

I would love to see examples. In my attempts to get something original on a not that challenging field (finance), with lots of guidance and hand holding on my end, I was getting a very bad version of what would be a consultant's marketing piece in a second rate industry publication. I am still surprised in other respects, e.g. performance in coding but not in terms originality and novel application.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#217
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has actually been research that found that there are strong diminishing returns in terms of at least expanding parameter sizes. While I think there are still breakthroughs to be made in terms of window sizes and workarounds like Mixture of Experts, I'm not sure how much farther we will get here in the long term in terms of raw performance of the LLM itself. FWIW, Sam Altman agrees and has a surprisingly similar…

How can research predict this wave is coming to an end, when research also didn't think this wave would happen either. It seems like there are always people saying 'it can't be done'. Then it happens. If there was a way to predict the future, then wouldn't that research need to know how something would be implemented, in order to know it can't be?

For the first time with GPT4, OpenAI as been able to predict model progress with accuracy:

> A large focus of the GPT-4 project has been building a deep learning stack that scales predictably. The primary reason is that, for very large training runs like GPT-4, it is not feasible to do extensive model-specific tuning. We developed infrastructure and optimization that have very predictable behavior across multiple scales. To verify this scalability, we accurately predicted in advance GPT-4’s final loss on our internal codebase (not part of the training set) by extrapolating from models trained using the same methodology but using 10,000x less compute:

> Now that we can accurately predict the metric we optimize during training (loss), we’re starting to develop methodology to predict more interpretable metrics. For example, we successfully predicted the pass rate on a subset of the HumanEval dataset, extrapolating from models with 1,000x less compute:

> We believe that accurately predicting future machine learning capabilities is an important part of safety that doesn’t get nearly enough attention relative to its potential impact (though we’ve been encouraged by efforts across several institutions). We are scaling up our efforts to develop methods that provide society with better guidance about what to expect from future systems, and we hope this becomes a common goal in the field.

Source: https://openai.com/research/gpt-4

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#218
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. I can't do a full table scan on an non-indexed column in a RDBMS with billions of rows on a single machine without it grinding to a halt. Tools have limitations.

Disingenuous: given the proper processing, you’d get a 100% deterministic and reliable answer. How do you get that out of an LLM? What tool is any good if it doesn’t work 100% of the time predictably?

How many tools do you know of that work 100% of the time. As someone that’s worked in software 20 years now, I don’t think there is anything from Linux to eMacs to visual studio to Java which doesn’t have bugs, issues, crashes, shitty stuff, and yet we expect a revolutionary and amazing technology to generate code perfectly?

It’s funny those the LLM haters keep raising the bar to a level that no other software can reach. Chatgpt is a tool like any other and just like a hammer, it can be misused, or it can be incredibly useful if used well. I personally find chatgpt mind boggling and astounding and use it every day multiple times for both coding and non coding purposes. But it’s totally normal and reasonable to me to expect bugs, do you really expect visual studio to run on large solutions and never have crashes or memory issues or slowness? If so you’re going to be disappointed.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#219
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A system that could perfectly predict what I would do in response to any particular stimuli, as a continuing sequence, would be exactly as intelligent as me. That's certainly interesting but it's not a depiction of a LLM is it ? LLM's are not deterministic, and (perhaps) so are we so two non-deterministic systems can only occasionally align (or so I assume). Intuition says they may get "close enough", whatever that m…

LLMs are deterministic if the temperature parameter is set to 0. Randomness is artificially injected into their outputs otherwise in order to make them more interesting, but they're just a series of math operations.

Randomness is artificially injected

I'd argue everything about a LLM is artificial, there is no natural process involved is there ? Since its design is to mimic us (at face value, though I don't know how fair of a description this is) then randomness is essential I think.

Re: AI isn’t good enough

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unclear to me. The economics might not be so great as you might need (i) expensive people, (ii) there could be a lot to check for correctness, and (iii) checking could involve expensive things beyond people. Net productivity might not go up much then. For some industries where I understand the cost stacks with lower and higher skilled workers, I'd say it only takes out the "cheap" part and thereby not taking out a la…

My interpretation of the parent post is not that LLMs' output should be checked by humans, or that they are used in domains where physical verification is expensive; no, what they're suggesting is using a secondary non-stochastic AI system/verification solution to check the LLM's results and act as a source of truth. An example that exists today would be the combination of ChatGPT and Wolfram [1], in which ChatGPT ca…

Yes, your interpretation is correct. I think the killer app here is mathematical proof. You often need intuition and creativity to come up with a proof, and I expect AI to become really good at that. Checking the proof then is completely reliable, and can be done by machine as well.

Once we have AI's running around with the creativity of artists, and the precision of logicians, ... Well, time to read some Iain M. Banks novels.

Post reply on HN