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

There is no A.I.

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 523 posts

Re: There is no A.I.

#401

Post by [deleted] »

aldarisbm wrote: post #370
adriand wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it’s true, it is a form of social collaboration. It’s based on a vast training dataset consisting entirely of things humans have written. It’s tuned via reinforcement learning via hiring thousands of people, many of whom are paid poverty wages. And it is further refined by the daily training it gets from its hundred million human users. The core of the article is in the title. The tech is artificial but it’s not…

and computers are fancy calculators, let’s be careful to not fall into reductionist views. we know the architecture but we don’t know what happens in the black box.

[deleted]

Re: There is no A.I.

#402

Post by notjoemama »

aldarisbm wrote: post #370
adriand wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it’s true, it is a form of social collaboration. It’s based on a vast training dataset consisting entirely of things humans have written. It’s tuned via reinforcement learning via hiring thousands of people, many of whom are paid poverty wages. And it is further refined by the daily training it gets from its hundred million human users. The core of the article is in the title. The tech is artificial but it’s not…

and computers are fancy calculators, let’s be careful to not fall into reductionist views. we know the architecture but we don’t know what happens in the black box.

Well, and let's not treat it like dancing bear either.

I've been following AI/ML for years so I'm not blown away like so many other people. I know enough I'm also not mystified by the current popular form. Which is to say there have been previous. LLMs are not AGI but still "a form of AI". Unfortunately AI has become a buzzword, actually it has been for years.

While many are just coming to the party I feel a sense of relief that this area of research has been able to produce a functional product for the public.

And while I'm still excited for the moment we identify personhood, I fully expect pushback from somewhere to deny its existence. The wealthy have fought to automated labor and they will not give up their slaves easily.

Re: There is no A.I.

#403

Post by fragsworth »

GistNoesis wrote: post #398
fauxpause_ wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I’m wrong but this concept of state is across a prediction which is a series of token proposals. Not a sense of persistent state over, say, a chat session.

At each new token processed (edit: either if the token comes from the user or has been generated), this dynamic internal state is updated via a formula based on the model parameters and latest processed token. To make this more clear, if you process 1000 tokens the neural network will have gone through a sequence of 1000 states. Each of these states can be probed and analysed, by training a classifier on top of this…

> At the end of the chat session, this internal state is not persisted (but could be recreated from the produced conversation as it is deterministic)

You're mistaken about internal state in a chat session. It loses all state after each response. There is internal state for a moment during a single response, but it's not persisted once it's done. Between messages, it has no memory of previous messages in your conversation.

The way it's implemented is by the seemingly silly/expensive method of pre-pending the conversation history to your request to the LLM. The "internal state" is usually stored on your local machine.

Re: There is no A.I.

#404

Post by sleigh-bells »

pmoriarty wrote: post #281
sleigh-bells wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate personhood means that you can own a piece of a company without being personally liable, because the corporation is its own legal entity. This is why people can start businesses without worrying about being in debt for the rest of their lives if it fails. After all, if the corporation isn't a separate legal entity but just a collection of investors, if the corporation wronged someone, the investors could be…

> no corporate personhood would mean that very few people would stick out their necks to start or invest in companies. What a dystopia that would be.

-sent from my iPhone

Re: There is no A.I.

#405

Post by runarberg »

maroonblazer wrote: post #325
runarberg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in a very anthropocentric sense. How do we know an ant colony doesn’t reason abstractly (or a human town for that matter)? What about slime mold or ameba? Both can solve a maze as well as humans. What makes you think a forest ecosystem isn’t capable of abstract though? It is only if we narrow thought to mean precisely human-like thought when humans and human creations are uniquely capable of something. To that e…

Isn't reasoning abstractly a spectrum though? I took the parent to mean "reason abstractly to the same degree humans do". Slime molds and amebas might be able to reason abstractly to some degree but they can't write code or poetry.

Like I said, only in an anthropocentric sense.

How do you know fungal networks don’t write and read poetry under the forest floor? If they do—and we have no reason to doubt that they do—you wouldn’t be able to read them, let alone understand them.

The earth’s biosphere as a whole also writes code, just in DNA as opposed to on silicon transistors, why exclude the earth’s biosphere from things capable of abstract thought?

Re: There is no A.I.

#406

Post by mdale »

ResearchCode wrote: post #378
b33j0r wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just can’t accept that we might solve ourselves. People are understandably desperate to understand their experiences as more than an encoding of a thing that might be explained. And all of our surprising wins and awful mistakes had explainable reasons, dammit; it wasn’t just a misfiring of trained statistical networks!

I think people look more desperate to hype these LLM toys, that they are not the next blockchain or self-driving car. When they fail it's just excuses like you are not using the latest version or "prompting" them right. The LLM value add for coding is less than the value add of syntax highlighting in my experience.

I think it's getting better.

In my experience and it's certainly useful for unit tests speeding things up for me pretty dramatically.

Also when working on a new development language was quick to point out "how you do that" with the inline vars I needed manipulated vs look ups in Google and copy pasting.

Re: There is no A.I.

#407

Post by smrtinsert »

titzer wrote: post #318

> If the new tech isn’t true artificial intelligence, then what is it? In my view, the most accurate way to understand what we are building today is as an innovative form of social collaboration. What an utterly vapid and ignorant view. In the rest of the article Lanier goes on to argue that it's all just "simple mathematics". Yeah, yeah, and computers are just simple NAND gates, amirite? I've waffled over the years…

Its the illusion of reasoning to me. It's like YouTube showing you videos on how to mountain bike after you asked for videos on how to change a mountain bikes inner tube.

Re: There is no A.I.

#409

Post by FeepingCreature »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #327
titzer wrote: post #318

> If the new tech isn’t true artificial intelligence, then what is it? In my view, the most accurate way to understand what we are building today is as an innovative form of social collaboration. What an utterly vapid and ignorant view. In the rest of the article Lanier goes on to argue that it's all just "simple mathematics". Yeah, yeah, and computers are just simple NAND gates, amirite? I've waffled over the years…

> Are they self-aware? Who tf knows? But they are reasoning through problems. We know. They are not self aware. They’re a matrix. They don’t have any internal state. Do not anthropomorphisize the notion of reasoning.

It seems you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between "internal" and "external" state. The context window is state. Doesn't matter where it is.

Re: There is no A.I.

#410

Post by engineeringwoke »

GistNoesis wrote: post #398
fauxpause_ wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I’m wrong but this concept of state is across a prediction which is a series of token proposals. Not a sense of persistent state over, say, a chat session.

At each new token processed (edit: either if the token comes from the user or has been generated), this dynamic internal state is updated via a formula based on the model parameters and latest processed token. To make this more clear, if you process 1000 tokens the neural network will have gone through a sequence of 1000 states. Each of these states can be probed and analysed, by training a classifier on top of this…

> To make this more clear, if you process 1000 tokens the neural network will have gone through a sequence of 1000 states.

That isn't how transformer architectures work

Post reply on HN