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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 622 posts

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

#321

Post by SimianSci »

sdesol wrote: post #248
jihadjihad wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> "let's only allow the LLM to do things we know it is rock-solid at." Even this is insanely hard in my opinion. The one thing that you would assume LLM to excel at is spelling and grammar checking for the English language, but even the top model (GPT-4o) can be insanely stupid/unpredictable at times. Take the following example from my tool: https://app.gitsense.com/?doc=6c9bada92&model=GPT-4o&samples... 5 models are…

> "I see LLM as a power tool for domain experts, and you have to assume whatever it spits out may be wrong, and your process should allow for it."

this gets to the heart of it for me. I think LLMs are an incredible tool, providing advanced augmentation on our already developed search capabilities. What advanced user doesnt want to have a colleague they can talk about their specific domain capacity with?

The problem comes from the hyperscaling ambitions of the players who were the first in this space. They quickly hyped up the technology beyond want it should have been.

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

#322

Post by JohnMakin »

jmward01 wrote: post #310
JohnMakin wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange to me that's your takeaway. The reason that the internet was overhyped in the 2000's is because it was and also heavily overvalued. It took a massive correction and seriously disruptive bubble burst to break the delusion and move on to something more sustainable.

I disagree that it was over hyped. It has transformed our society so much that I would argue it was vastly under-hyped. Sure, there were a lot of silly companies that sprang up and went away because they weren't sound, but so much of the modern economy is based on the internet that it is hard to say any business isn't somehow internet related today. You would be hard pressed to find any business anywhere that doesn't…

pets.com was valued at $400 million based almost completely on its domain name. That's the classic example. People were throwing buckets of money at any .com that resolved to a site and almost all of it failed. I'm not sure how that doesn't meet the definition of over-hyped. It feels very similar to now. Not even to mention - the web largely doesn't consist of .com sites anymore, it's mostly a few centralized sites and apps.

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

#323

Post by xanderlewis »

david2ndaccount wrote: post #99
falcor84 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s like chaining up perceptrons hoping to get more expressive power for free. Isn't that literally the cause of the success of deep learning? It's not quite "free", but as I understand it, the big breakthrough of AlexNet (and much of what came after) was that running a larger CNN on a larger dataset allowed the model to be so much more effective without any big changes in architecture.

Without a non-linear activation function, chaining perceptrons together is equivalent to one large perceptron.

Yep. falcor84: you’re thinking of the so-called ‘multilayer perceptron’ which is basically an archaic name for a (densely connected?) neural network. I was referring to traditional perceptrons.

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

#324

Post by 77pt77 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #90
leosanchez wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look around, People still believe that a next word predictor trained on reddit posts would somehow lead to artificial general superintelligence

People believed ELIZA was sentient too. I bet you could still get 10% or more people, today, to believe it is.

ELIZA was probably more effective than most therapists.

Definitely cheaper.

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

#325

Post by xanderlewis »

j_maffe wrote: post #36
xanderlewis wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by agents you mean systems comprised of individual (perhaps LLM-powered) agents interacting with each other, probably not. I get the vague impression that so far researchers haven’t found any advantage to such systems — anything you can do with a group of AI agents can be emulated with a single one. It’s like chaining up perceptrons hoping to get more expressive power for free.

> I get the vague impression that so far researchers haven’t found any advantage to such systems — anything you can do with a group of AI agents can be emulated with a single one. It’s like chaining up perceptrons hoping to get more expressive power for free. Emergence happens when many elements interact in a system. Brains are literally a bunch of neurons in a complex network. Also research is already showing promis…

That’s the inspiration behind the idea, but it doesn’t seem to be working in practice.

It’s not true that any element, when duplicated and linked together will exhibit anything emergent. Neural networks (in a certain sense, though not their usual implementation) are already built out of individual units linked together, so simply having more of these groups of units might not add anything important.

> research is already showing promising results of the performance of agent systems.

…in which case, please show us! I’d be interested.

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

#326

Post by moffkalast »

brookst wrote: post #194
jmward01 wrote: post #175

Every negative headline I see about AI hitting a wall or being over-hyped makes me think of the early 2000's with that new thing the 'internet' (yes, I know the internet is a lot older than that). There is little doubt in my mind that ten years from now nearly every aspect of life will be deeply connected to AI just like the internet took over everything in the late 90's and early 2000's and is now deeply connected t…

And, as I've noted a couple of times in this thread, how many times have we heard that Moore's law is dead and compute has hit a wall?

Well according to Nvidia you can just ignore Moore's law and start requiring people to install multi kilowatt outlets just for their cards. Who needs efficiency amirite?

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

#329

Post by ata_aman »

jedberg wrote: post #291
norir wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is an example of a task that I do not believe this generation of LLMs can ever do but that is possible for a human: design a Turing complete programming language that is both human and machine readable and implement a self hosted compiler in this language that self compiles on existing hardware faster than any known language implementation that also self compiles. Additionally, for any syntactically or semantica…

I will get excited when an LLM (or whatever technology is next) can solve tasks that 80%+ of adult humans can solve. Heck let's even say 80% of college graduates to make it harder. Things like drive a car, fold laundry, run an errand, do some basic math. You'll notice that two of those require some form of robot or mobility. I think that is key -- you can't have AGI without the ability to interact with the world in a…

So embodied cognition right?

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

#330

Post by 77pt77 »

mtkd wrote: post #281
pluc wrote: post #43

They've simply run out of data to use to fabricate legitimate-looking guesses. They can't create anything that doesn't already exist.

And that is potentially only going to worsen as: 1. more data gets walled-off as owners realise value 2. stackoverflow-type feedback loops cease to exist as few people ask a public question and get public answers ... they ask a model privately and get an answer based on last visible public solutions 3. bad actors start deliberately trying to poison inputs (if sites served malicious responses to GPTBot/CCBot crawlers…

> more data gets walled-off as owners realize value

What's amazing to me to is that no one is throwing accusations of plagiarism.

I still think that if the "wrong people" had tried doing this they would have been obliterated by the courts.

Post reply on HN