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

Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#41

Post by brookst »

rossdavidh wrote: post #40

I think these efforts point out something valuable, although probably not in the way the creators intended. Lots of people use "markers" of reliability, like citing your sources or making sentences with a certain kind of structure or tone, to estimate trustworthiness. These articles make it clear that it is entirely possible to have those markers, but be entirely incorrect in your assertions about the topic in questi…

“Apes don’t read philosophy.”

“Yes, they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.”

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#42

Post by FeepingCreature »

b4je7d7wb wrote: post #32
halpmeh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why “fundamentally unsuited”? Neural networks have solved tons of problems previously thought to be “too hard” for ML, e.g. playing Go.

Go is not solved. The AI doesn't know the best move. It just knows a good move.

And yet, Go AIs are now unbeatable by humans. This demonstrates that "solved" is unreasonable and unnecessary.

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#43

Post by FeepingCreature »

mytydev wrote: post #36
throwaway9870 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to identify truth is called the scientific method.

Science can't identify the truth. It can only identify what is NOT true. As our knowledge expands, we get closer to discovering the truth; but we can never be sure we've arrived.

Science can also not identify falsehoods, it can only shift confidence.

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#44

Post by fullshark »

rossdavidh wrote: post #40

I think these efforts point out something valuable, although probably not in the way the creators intended. Lots of people use "markers" of reliability, like citing your sources or making sentences with a certain kind of structure or tone, to estimate trustworthiness. These articles make it clear that it is entirely possible to have those markers, but be entirely incorrect in your assertions about the topic in questi…

It took me an embarrassingly long time to understand that the previous marker of authority regarding news: "published in a newspaper" completely lost all its meaning as the blogosphere exploded, and publishing costs on the internet went to near zero. Kind of why I find the pearl clutching over substack hilarious, as if having a third party website sell ads on a writer's blogpost signals they are much more worthy of authority.

I think the air of authority these academic journals get is the next domino to fall. Get ready for a lot of "we used AI to write an academic paper and it got published in this journal" stories.

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#45

Post by BurningFrog »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #42
b4je7d7wb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go is not solved. The AI doesn't know the best move. It just knows a good move.

And yet, Go AIs are now unbeatable by humans. This demonstrates that "solved" is unreasonable and unnecessary.

Cars are much faster than humans.

That doesn't mean transportation is solved.

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#47

Post by mirekrusin »

It's sad that people like booleans so much.

They need to know if they should always use umbrella or never do. They want to know if umbrella is good or evil.

Also funny, idiotic memes, created in few minutes, seem to be blindly equated against years of work with ease nowadays.

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#48

Post by pessimizer »

b4je7d7wb wrote: post #32
halpmeh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why “fundamentally unsuited”? Neural networks have solved tons of problems previously thought to be “too hard” for ML, e.g. playing Go.

Go is not solved. The AI doesn't know the best move. It just knows a good move.

You're equivocating on "solved." Solved as in performing as well as humans, not solved in the mathematical sense which is both 1) not necessarily possible, and 2) nothing anybody has ever named as a test for AI.

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#49

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

coliveira wrote: post #22

This software is excellent for pseudo science. For example, young earth peddlers will be able to generate entire mambo jambo references and use them to indoctrinate more people.

It appears they don’t need AI for that.

Re: Why Meta’s latest large language model survived only three days online

#50

Post by pessimizer »

BurningFrog wrote: post #45
FeepingCreature wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, Go AIs are now unbeatable by humans. This demonstrates that "solved" is unreasonable and unnecessary.

Cars are much faster than humans. That doesn't mean transportation is solved.

> That doesn't mean transportation is solved.

What are you even talking about?

edit: if we call a cab to get us to the restaurant, and it arrives successfully and takes us to the restaurant, transportation was solved.

Post reply on HN