Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

bloomberg.com

311–320 of 622 posts

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#311

not long ago these people would have you believe that a next word predictor trained on reddit posts would somehow lead to artificial general superintelligence

I don't understand why you'd be so dismissive about this. It's looking less likely that it'll end up happening, but is it any less believable than getting general intelligence by training a blob of meat?

I feel like accusing people of being "so dismissive" was strongly associated with NFTs and cryptocurrency a few years ago, and now it's widely deployed against anyone skeptical of very expensive, not very good word generators.

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#312

A few important things to remember here: The best engineering minds have been focused on scaling transformer pre and post training for the last three years because they had good reason to believe it would work, and it has up until now. Progress has been measured against benchmarks which are / were largely solvable with scale. There is another emerging paradigm which is still small(er) scale but showing remarkable res…

> That's full multi-modal training with embodied agents (aka robots). 1x, Figure, Physical Intelligence, Tesla are all making rapid progress on functionality which is definitely beyond frontier LLMs because it is distinctly different. Cool, but we already have robots doing this in 2d space (aka self driving cars) that struggle not to kill people. How is adding a third dimension going to help? People are just refusing…

My understanding is that machine learning today is a lot like interpolation of examples in the dataset. The breakthrough of LLMs is due to the idea that interpolation in a 1024-dimensional space works much better than in a 2d space, if we naively interpolated English letters. All the modern transformers stuff is basically an advanced interpolation method that uses a large local neighborhood than just few nearest examples. It's like the Lanczos interpolation kernel, using a 1d analogy. Increasing the size of the kernel won't bring any gains, because the current kernel already nearly perfectly approximates an ideal interpolation (a full dataset DFT).

However interpolation isn't reasoning. If we want to understand the motion of planets, we would start with a dataset of (x, y, z, t) coordinates and try to derive the law of motion. Imagine if someone simply interpolated the dataset and presented the law of gravity as an array of million coefficients (aka weights)? Our minds have to work with a very small operating memory that can hardly fit 10 coefficients. This constraint forces us to develop intelligence that compacts the entire dataset into one small differential equation. Btw, English grammar is the differential equation of English in a lot of ways: it tells what the local rules are of valid trajectories of words that we call sentences.

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#313
post #195
post #115

Question for the group here: do we honestly feel like we've exhausted the options for delivering value on top of the current generation of LLMs? I lead a team exploring cutting edge LLM applications and end-user features. It's my intuition from experience that we have a LONG way to go. GPT-4o / Claude 3.5 are the go-to models for my team. Every combination of technical investment + LLMs yields a new list of potential…

> potential applications > if you ... > for example ... Yes there seems to be lots of potential. Yes we can brainstorm things that should work. Yes there is a lot of examples of incredible things in isolation. But it's a little bit like those youtube videos showing amazing basketball shots in 1 try, when in reality lots of failed attempts happened beforehand. Except our users experience the failed attempts (LLM repli…

To be fair in the human-based teams I've worked with in startups I couldn't show you products with decent retention.

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#314
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human interaction with peers is also guidance. I don't know how many team meetings PhD students have, but I do know about software development jobs with 15 minute daily standups, and that length meeting at 120 words per minute for 5 days a week, 48 weeks per year of a 3 year PhD is 1.296.000 words.

I have 3 remote employees whose job is consistently as bad as LLM. That means employees who use LLM are, on average, recognizably bad. Those who are good enough, are also good enough to write the code manually. To the point I wonder whether this HN thread is generated by OpenAI, trying to create buzz around AI.

1. The person I'm replying to is hypothesising about a future, not yet existent, version, GPT5. Current quality limits don't tell you jack about a hypothetical future, especially one that may not ever happen because money.

2. I'm not commenting on the quality, because they were writing about something that doesn't exist and therefore that's clearly just a given for the discussion. The only thing I was adding is that humans also need guidance, and quite a lot of it — even just a two-week sprint's worth of 15 minute daily stand-up meetings is 18,000 words, which is well beyond the point where I'd have given up prompting an LLM and done the thing myself.

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#315
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a LLM can certainly make up a lot information that never existed before.

I strongly believe this gets into an information theoretical constraint akin to why perpetual motion machines don't work. In theory, yes you could generate an unlimited amount of data for the models, but how much of it is unique or valuable information? If you were to compress all this generated training data using a really good algorithm, how much actual information remains?

I sure hope there is some bright eyed bushy tailed graduate students crafting up some theorem to prove this. Because it is absolutely a feedback loop.

... that being said I'm sure there is plenty of additional "real data" that hasn't been fed to these models yet. For one thing, I think ChatGPT sucks so bad at terraform because almost all the "real code" to train on is locked behind private repositories. There isn't much publicly available real-world terraform projects to train on. Same with a lot of other similar languages and tools -- a lot of that knowledge is locked away as trade secrets and hidden in private document stores.

(that being said Sonnet 3.5 is much, much, much better at terraform than chatgpt. It's much better at coding in general but it's night and day for terraform)

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once we've scraped the internet of its data, we need more data. Robots can take in video/audio data 24/7 and can be placed in your house to record this data by offering services like cooking/cleaning/folding laundry. Yeah, I'll pay $20k to have you record everything that happens in my house if I can stop doing dishes for five years!

Why 5 years?

No real reason. I just made it up. But that's kind of my reasonable expectation of longevity of a machine like a robotic lawnmower and battery life.

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#317
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re solving novel problems all day every day?

Pretty much, yes. My job is pretty fun; it mostly entails things like "take this horrible file workflow some research assistant came up with while high 15 years ago and turn it into a newer horrible file format a NEW research assistant came up with (also while high) 3 years ago" - and automate this in our data processing pipeline.

If you've got clearly defined start input format and end output format, sure it seems that it would be a good candidate for heavy LLM use. But I don't know if that's most people.

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#318
post #115

Question for the group here: do we honestly feel like we've exhausted the options for delivering value on top of the current generation of LLMs? I lead a team exploring cutting edge LLM applications and end-user features. It's my intuition from experience that we have a LONG way to go. GPT-4o / Claude 3.5 are the go-to models for my team. Every combination of technical investment + LLMs yields a new list of potential…

Your hypothesis here is not exclusive of the hypothesis in this article.

Name your platform. Linux. C++. The Internet. The x86 processor architecture. We haven't exhausted the options for delivering value on top of those, but that doesn't mean the developers and sellers of those platforms don't try to improve them anyway and might struggle to extract value from application developers who use them.

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#319
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> potential applications > if you ... > for example ... Yes there seems to be lots of potential. Yes we can brainstorm things that should work. Yes there is a lot of examples of incredible things in isolation. But it's a little bit like those youtube videos showing amazing basketball shots in 1 try, when in reality lots of failed attempts happened beforehand. Except our users experience the failed attempts (LLM repli…

> Except our users experience the failed attempts (LLM replies that are wrong, even when backed by RAG) and it's incredibly hard to hide those from them. This has been my team's experience (and frustration) as well, and has led us to look at using LLMs for classifying / structuring, but not entrusting an LLM with making a decision based on things like a database schema or business logic. I think the technology and to…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are struggling to build more advanced AI

#320
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much, yes. My job is pretty fun; it mostly entails things like "take this horrible file workflow some research assistant came up with while high 15 years ago and turn it into a newer horrible file format a NEW research assistant came up with (also while high) 3 years ago" - and automate this in our data processing pipeline.

If you've got clearly defined start input format and end output format, sure it seems that it would be a good candidate for heavy LLM use. But I don't know if that's most people.

If it were ever clearly defined or even consistent from input to input I would be overjoyed.
Post reply on HN