Live data from Hacker News

The AI Battle

aifuture.substack.com

61–70 of 137 posts

Re: The AI Battle

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the horse picture sucks. Other people might say that they like Dall-E’s output on Twitter, for signalling purposes, but I still think they don’t really believe that. Still, it’s only a matter of time till nicer graphics are possible. Most graphic designers and artists are still worse than this thing, especially the type that bought a $200 drawing tablet on Amazon and sell their services on Fiverr. Those…

The way I have put it to my artist friends is in the form of litmus test: If I sat at a local farmers market selling this art, people would likely buy some of it. If the delineation can only be made because you are an art major, or practicing artist, that is not really compelling to your own market. We are on the third generation of these type of "AI" and they are already past the point where people would exchange ca…

This time has come already. Many contemporary painters already leverage this. Some artist, like Jon Rafman, have trained their own models to generate digital imagery.

I do think this can be thought of more like a sketchbook or a camera at the end of the day, since real contemporary art collectors will not go for a print from Dall-e 2 or Midjourney so readily. Make a painting from it and if it's a decent rendition it will likely sell.

Re: The AI Battle

#62
post #58
post #8

Any bets on when the majority of software development is automated? My estimate based on the exponential improvement rate of AI on various tests like MMLU and MATH is within 3 years. I know that might sound crazy, but a year ago it would have been crazy to think that graphics design jobs could be automated by an AI in 2022. Feel free to disagree and discuss why.

Well what if it gets 99.9% automated but instead it means each programmer can now program like a team of 50 programmers, devops, pms, and qa people from today.

That's the common counterpoint, but is there 50x the demand for developers? I work in tech and I know how hard pressed people are for developer talent but it is not more than a couple fold off. I doubt companies and startups would have enough work to hire >=5x the developers. Thus, AI can be very disruptive to that job function.

Re: The AI Battle

#63
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern word processors haven’t suddenly and dramatically increased the number of great books available. They save a lot of time and effort relative to a typewriter, but such drudgery isn’t the bottleneck on creativity that you’re suggesting.

I know a lot of writers who are very good at creating an outline and describing what's going on but poor at actually sitting down and getting words on paper for any extended period of time. These same people can read and critique/edit/etc endlessly. I think it's a fairly common problem because block is the number one topic in most forums for writers. Having a tool that takes an outline and generates a rough draft of…

It’s cheap to pay someone to create a rough draft from an outline, no need for AI. However, doing so isn’t very helpful.

Re: The AI Battle

#64

This very much requires acceptance of the worse-is-better model. That "beautiful" drawing of an an astronaut riding a horse is aesthetically... crap. It may take a person 5 hours to paint or draw that, but, arguably, a person wouldn't. GPT-3 might generate a novel, but, generally speaking the prose is jarring and awful to read, because there is no intent (danger: philosophically loaded word) behind it. It's all autom…

> DALL-E and GPT-3 are the polyester of design and creative construction. They're cheap; aesthetically uncomfortable. We'll turn to humans for high-quality design until we actually get AGI, and those systems are not a path to AGI.

I wish this were true, because it assumes a lot about Humanity living up to it's highest potential in terms of QC; but the truth is we're talking about digial content creation, which has been churning obscene amounts of data on a daily basis in the Internet era. And this means that it isn't about 'the best of the best' what it actually is a race to the bottom in terms of 'good enough' source material which is as disposable and fleeting as it's consumers attention span.

As a space nerd (its in my bio) I followed James Webb since Cassini was decommissioned/crashed and I found out about the necessary crypgenic tests to make Jw work were underway, but even as impressive as I find the images we see (and they are breath taking) I'm still spending way more time on DALLE-2 subreddit admiring all the prompts because I still don't have access to it myself and like the sheer novelty of it all.

You want a more closer analogue than polyester clothes? Try food: processed junk and by extension the American diet has made us awash in excess and rather than create more discerning consumers who have all the options that Modern chemistry, biology and AG science have to offer to shift the market to a more sustainable and higher quality point: we instead face the stark reality that the 1-2 killers in most developed countries are heart disease and diabetes that are directly correlated to the over consumption of cheap junk. Obesity remains one of the biggest threats to over all quality and longevity of an individual's life!

I study AI and ML and I have many artists friends, I used to be a cook so it's not a far leap, and we often discuss that this is inevitable: the inability to excel and to standout in a World in just one medium due to the advancement of technology.

It's not enough to be a creative who just focuses on music or painting, or sculpture if you want to have anything but a self-funded gallery where you try to sell your pieces to the attendees (often at a loss) in order to market yourself in the hopes of a larger commission that lets you quit your day job (or at least have a hiatus) when social media has availed itself as a gallery of what may not be the best artists in the World but the most prolific and often those with the best marketing and most followers to stay as the top trending in your discipline.

It's something we did encountered sooner in the culinary World as food porn became as ubiquitous as it was pre-covid so I see it quite clearly, it wasn't enough to deliver amazing service and provide a good meal sourced from artisans and local farmers and grow from word to mouth, now you had to play the social media game and become influencers or host influencers and then have them 'engage' with their demographic to expand your clientele and reservations for that quarterly push: and as was our case it helps if you are related to a certain tech mogul who dominates social media and try to ride coat tails where ever possible. And even that isn't enough as you still have to pay off yelp for keeping bad reviews at bay in a perverse game, while gamifying Google reviews etc... but we had tech giants buy-out on a weekly basis, proving it works.

It's becoming such that it's less about the execution of the art or the craft itself but rather doing N amount of things to remain as a signal amongst all the noise while the art becomes a secondary possibly tertiary part of what keeps the lights on; techies wanted disruption, and this is what it looks like in the 21st century.

I think this may be required reading for kids just graduating HS and thinking about what to do, as it gives a sobering view of what has happened in just a short duration when it comes to AI in certain, often precarious, Industries [0] and how it can potentially shape culture itself as so much of AI growth is in the surveillance-economy.

0: https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/ai-colonialism-s...

Re: The AI Battle

#65
post #40
post #22

Are AIs capable of creating something really unique, or is it just a washing machine spinning on old ideas?

these particular ML models are trained on human-generated data, which means the model is a reflection of that data. This doesn't mean that the model can't create something original though. There's a video on youtube where a linus techtips graphic designer competes with DALLE-2, and I found it interesting that the human graphic designer did exactly what some accused the AI of doing - finding images on the internet and…

> which means the model is a reflection of that data

Sorry for the image, but a deconstructed animal - here's a paw, one eye in that glass, muscle fibers sorted on that shelf - is not "what it was" anymore: it's incomparable to the original - it's not really a reflection.

"To go to the other side" is not meaningful, it made sense in the joke and in limited other contexts.

Re: The AI Battle

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those systems are not a path to AGI If that's the actual meat of your claim, it's weird to just put it unsupported at the end. If you think it's an aside you've got a big problem, because without it the rest is pretty weak. We saw this with chess. Anybody who was clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess, because technically there do seem to be a few humans who are better, was screwed…

>> Anybody who was clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess, because technically there do seem to be a few humans who are better, was screwed the moment the machines begin routinely beating grand masters. Who was "clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess" and when was that?

Made an account so I could mention David Levy’s infamous bet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Levy_(chess_player)#Co...

That’s the way it is with AI: first people say X is impossible for computers, then they say X is hard, then they say X doesn’t work for certain edge cases, then they say we’ve known all along that computers could do X.

Re: The AI Battle

#67

This very much requires acceptance of the worse-is-better model. That "beautiful" drawing of an an astronaut riding a horse is aesthetically... crap. It may take a person 5 hours to paint or draw that, but, arguably, a person wouldn't. GPT-3 might generate a novel, but, generally speaking the prose is jarring and awful to read, because there is no intent (danger: philosophically loaded word) behind it. It's all autom…

> those systems are not a path to AGI If that's the actual meat of your claim, it's weird to just put it unsupported at the end. If you think it's an aside you've got a big problem, because without it the rest is pretty weak. We saw this with chess. Anybody who was clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess, because technically there do seem to be a few humans who are better, was screwed…

On "not the path to AGI": Gary Marcus on the Mindscape podcast is worth a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANRnuT9nLEE&list=PLrxfgDEc2N...

Transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2022/02/14/184-...

"...And then there’s natural language understanding and reasoning, and I would say we have not really made progress at all. GPT-3, which we may wanna talk about, gives the illusion of having natural language of understanding, but I don’t really think that it does. And we are nowhere near, for example, an all-purpose general assistant. ..."

Re: The AI Battle

#68
post #8

Any bets on when the majority of software development is automated? My estimate based on the exponential improvement rate of AI on various tests like MMLU and MATH is within 3 years. I know that might sound crazy, but a year ago it would have been crazy to think that graphics design jobs could be automated by an AI in 2022. Feel free to disagree and discuss why.

You must be using an unusual definition of automated. I’d be willing to bet $10 against your 3 year estimate if you can define it more precisely. I doubt it will happen before language models achieve human level perplexity which should happen around 2038.

Also can graphics design jobs really be automated by an AI in 2022? Cause I’d sure love to stop begging people to make icons for me lol

Re: The AI Battle

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those systems are not a path to AGI If that's the actual meat of your claim, it's weird to just put it unsupported at the end. If you think it's an aside you've got a big problem, because without it the rest is pretty weak. We saw this with chess. Anybody who was clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess, because technically there do seem to be a few humans who are better, was screwed…

On "not the path to AGI": Gary Marcus on the Mindscape podcast is worth a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANRnuT9nLEE&list=PLrxfgDEc2N... Transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2022/02/14/184-... "...And then there’s natural language understanding and reasoning, and I would say we have not really made progress at all. GPT-3, which we may wanna talk about, gives the illusion of having natural…

> I don’t really think that it does

Either the quote is poorly chosen or reading this article is not worth the time.

Re: The AI Battle

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Anybody who was clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess, because technically there do seem to be a few humans who are better, was screwed the moment the machines begin routinely beating grand masters. Who was "clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess" and when was that?

Made an account so I could mention David Levy’s infamous bet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Levy_(chess_player)#Co... That’s the way it is with AI: first people say X is impossible for computers, then they say X is hard, then they say X doesn’t work for certain edge cases, then they say we’ve known all along that computers could do X.

Why "infamous"? In any case, Levy did win his bet when there had been no computer chess engine that could beat him in ten years after betting against McCarthy and Michie [1]. Despite that he acknowledge that chess engines had improved further than he had thought:

>> Levy wrote, "I had proved that my 1968 assessment had been correct, but on the other hand my opponent in this match was very, very much stronger than I had thought possible when I started the bet."[37] He observed that, "Now nothing would surprise me (very much)."[38]

(Edit: the quote is from your WP link.)

So that at least really does not match the pattern you mention. Levy's evaluation of chess engines was pretty much in the water, all the way up to Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue. As far as I can tell he never said anything like "the machines can't really play chess" as the OP suggested. He just made a prediction about how much they could advance in ten years. And he was right.

I would therefore like more justification for your assertion that "that's the way it is in AI". I would also like a clarification: who are the "people" who say all those things? How representative are they of experts and researchers?

Who makes all those naive predictions about the impossibility of AI that are later proven wrong? For the time being, it seems that naive predictions can be traced more directly to luminaries of the field, like Alan Turing or Marvin Minsky [2], who predict that AI is "just around the corner", rather than skeptics and naysayers who say it wont' happen, as is usually suggested.

And then of course, there's Rodney Brooks' dated predictions, so far standing the test of time (although that's a short time!) [3].

_______________

[1] Totally coincidentally, Donald Michie was my thesis advisor's thesis advisor, so I'm, like, his academic grandchild.

[2] See: https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/AI-progress.htm...

"In 1958, Herbert Simon and Allen Newell wrote, “within ten years a digital computer will be the world’s chess champion”; note that this is 10 years before Levy and McCarthy's bet.

[3] https://rodneybrooks.com/predictions-scorecard-2022-january-...

Post reply on HN