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

AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#51

Post by JsonDemWitOster »

karahime wrote: post #45
JsonDemWitOster wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. Mobile and social became ubiquitous and are now table stakes. But my problem with VR and blockchain---even allowing for the fact/assumption that they are still relevant---is that they never lived up to their hype. They never became ubiquitous as mobile and social. They don't inspire investor confidence like they did in the past, if at all. AI, if it survives the public and regulatory backlash, could be h…

The vast consumer adoption and ongoing involvement seems to point the other way, though. I think a lot of the appearance of backlash is on (specifically anglophone, mostly) social media, which is going through a somewhat reactionary phase regardless.

Out of curiosity which markets exactly do you see with a positive AI outlook?

Also, I think you are downplaying the "anglophone" social media backlash too much for a couple reasons. _Anglophone_ social media is huge, even global. Everyone participates in anglophone social media even non-English speakers (who post in broken English, or comment in their native language in English-language content). So there is anglophone social media in all markets; it's not difficult to be aware of and espouse American public sentiment.

Even if you narrowly define anglophone socmed to correspond to the geo-cultural anglosphere, I think it's not surprising at all that the bulk of backlash is focused there because the leading AI companies are based there as well.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#52

Post by dagss »

cauch wrote: post #26
JsonDemWitOster wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess it is a sign we are re-evaluating what makes humans special. Always has been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect Tangentially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

While we should be careful of a bias, it is also a good practice in the scientific method to review definitions that may have been not precise enough. For example, initially, a "planet" was just a big body in space. Then when people started to see more and more nuances, the definition just refined, and some objects stopped being called "planet". I would not be surprised if there is a bias that pushes some people to r…

It's the same with human intelligence though. A human can be brilliant on some things and then we're puzzled why they are so idiotic in other areas.

Every time this comes up, people pick on any kind of flaws or inconsistencies of AI models, while at the same time giving a huge pass to the extreme variation in intelligence and stupidness displayed in human behaviour.

Creativity is the same. Human artists are "inspired" by earlier arts, perhaps following and slightly changing "trends" they participate in -- which is somehow seen as totally different from what AIs are doing.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#53

Post by fatata123 »

rcxdude wrote: post #41
TMWNN wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and then models learned that they can back track and error correct You mean "Human developers learned ...", yes? Or was there really an all AI-driven, self-improving aspect to this?

Well, LLM networks don't have a 'back track and error correct' component in the design, AFAIK.

[dead]

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#54

Post by JsonDemWitOster »

dagss wrote: post #52
cauch wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we should be careful of a bias, it is also a good practice in the scientific method to review definitions that may have been not precise enough. For example, initially, a "planet" was just a big body in space. Then when people started to see more and more nuances, the definition just refined, and some objects stopped being called "planet". I would not be surprised if there is a bias that pushes some people to r…

It's the same with human intelligence though. A human can be brilliant on some things and then we're puzzled why they are so idiotic in other areas. Every time this comes up, people pick on any kind of flaws or inconsistencies of AI models, while at the same time giving a huge pass to the extreme variation in intelligence and stupidness displayed in human behaviour. Creativity is the same. Human artists are "inspired…

My problem with AI is the sheer variance of its stupid-smart spectrum. While it's true that human intelligence is not deterministic or predictable, the inconsistency exists in a much narrower band of variance which makes failure modes foreseeable. Thus I would much prefer a system with humans in the loop with processes in place for idiot-proofing.

This is true for "lateral" (I lack a better term) fields of intelligence as well. You don't ask a philosophy professor advice for the rashes on your skin; you see a doctor for that. And yet both the professor and the doctor could be expected to accurately identify from a picture that you do have rashes on your skin. An AI (and I mean in the general sense, not only transformer LLMs) could give you a pretty accurate rundown of Plato and still think the same picture is a beautiful sunrise.

(I don't even kid. Just this morning, an AI labeled a GIF from _Friends_ as a 1950s magazine ad for white bread. Just what in the failure mode is that?)

You can't idiot-proof AI without knowing what's in the training data set and even then you run into question of scale.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#55

Post by JsonDemWitOster »

shevy-java wrote: post #37

What's next is more AI spam-slop. I already noticed this on youtube. Tons of short videos are AI sloppified, making youtube worse in the process.

> What's next is more AI spam-slop. I already noticed this on youtube.

I hope not but your observation on YouTube is spot-on. It's really frustrating. I've managed to keep good hygiene for my shorts feed. I practice zero-tolerance for braindead content; one strike is all it takes for the "never recommend" button.

But with the World Cup, the situation is just pandemonium. Football has always been breeding ground for low-effort content on the platform: unofficial highlights, cropped to death to avoid copyright, and always, for some reason, with a blaring background music. But now it's reached peak slop chaos: AI voiceovers, dubious anecdotes ("...and that kid, was Ronaldo"), and STILL the horribly blaring background music. The algorithm makes no distinction between quality and slop content of a topic. It's all just about the topic. So all it takes is for me to view a short related to football (even one of thoughtful commentary) for the slop to come in hordes.

At least I can now share in this forum's disdain for shorts. Kill that shit with fire man.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#56

Post by selestify »

JsonDemWitOster wrote: post #51
karahime wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast consumer adoption and ongoing involvement seems to point the other way, though. I think a lot of the appearance of backlash is on (specifically anglophone, mostly) social media, which is going through a somewhat reactionary phase regardless.

Out of curiosity which markets exactly do you see with a positive AI outlook? Also, I think you are downplaying the "anglophone" social media backlash too much for a couple reasons. _Anglophone_ social media is huge, even global. Everyone participates in anglophone social media even non-English speakers (who post in broken English, or comment in their native language in English-language content). So there is anglopho…

The Chinese market for one seems pretty optimistic about AI and the presence of AI in apps.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#57

Post by aswegs8 »

shevy-java wrote: post #38
nok22kon wrote: post #13

Yann LeCun was saying 3 years ago that because token generation is auto-regressive, its mathematically impossible to generate a long stream of coherent tokens, because errors amplify exponentially. and then models learned that they can back track and error correct so much for "mathematically impossible..."

You insinuate here AI "learned". I doubt that this was AI self-improvement.

Does that take anything away from the argument?

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#58

Post by cauch »

dagss wrote: post #52
cauch wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we should be careful of a bias, it is also a good practice in the scientific method to review definitions that may have been not precise enough. For example, initially, a "planet" was just a big body in space. Then when people started to see more and more nuances, the definition just refined, and some objects stopped being called "planet". I would not be surprised if there is a bias that pushes some people to r…

It's the same with human intelligence though. A human can be brilliant on some things and then we're puzzled why they are so idiotic in other areas. Every time this comes up, people pick on any kind of flaws or inconsistencies of AI models, while at the same time giving a huge pass to the extreme variation in intelligence and stupidness displayed in human behaviour. Creativity is the same. Human artists are "inspired…

> It's the same with human intelligence though.

No, this is not the same observation. In "basic LLM", the answer is not "confused" or "fail to understand", the answer is "inconsistent with the understanding mechanism". It is not that they "fail to understand while trying to understand", it is that there is not understanding mechanism at all.

Humans can have different level of intelligence, depending on the individuals, the subjects, even circumstantial situations (someone being tired, someone being distracted, or just bad luck). But they never make the same kind of mistakes I've observed with "basic LLM", where they do "non sequitur" that does not make sense at all but has all the characteristic of imitating something said by someone who understood.

I still even see it sometimes with Claude. It says logical stuff, and then suddenly something that does not make sense and it snaps me back to reality: none of this, including the correct things, are the result of understanding the underlying concepts, it is just that the correct things are more probable to generate, and that suddenly, a nonsensical happen to also be probable for a given configuration.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#59

Post by card_zero »

aswegs8 wrote: post #57
shevy-java wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You insinuate here AI "learned". I doubt that this was AI self-improvement.

Does that take anything away from the argument?

What argument, "a theory was wrong"? No, the inane central observation, the observation that a researcher was unable to predict a discovery before it was discovered, remains true despite the gratuitous insertion of a little bit of bullshit about AI learning.

I suppose it's additionally trying to imply something else, like "due to a pattern of researchers being unable to discover discoveries before they discover them, AGI is just around the corner".

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#60

Post by card_zero »

SwellJoe wrote: post #23
feverzsj wrote: post #4

AI winter.

We're past the point where there's a feasible argument that there is an AI winter coming. The models work remarkably well for several classes of problem that seemed impossible a few years ago. They're not going away. There will still absolutely be a lot of ups and down and crazy stuff that happens in AI, but it won't be that AI almost completely stops being developed/funded for a decade or more. The biggest risk, I t…

They're not going away, in the same sense that Henry Winkler is still alive and working.
Post reply on HN