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

OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

serpapi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#61

Post by ben_w »

harryf wrote: post #44
RUnconcerned wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too am a big fan of having my computer hallucinate incorrect information.

>> print(“Hello, world!”.ai_reverse()) world, Hello!

First few versions of Swift kept changing how strings work because it's not entirely obvious what most people intend from the nth element of a string.

Used to be easy, when it was ASCII.

Reverse the bytes of utf-8 and it won't always be valid uft-8.

Reverse the code-points, and the Canadian flag gets replaced with the Ascension Island flag.

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#62

Post by londons_explore »

dns_snek wrote: post #56

For all the posturing and crypto hate on HN, we're entering a world where it's socially acceptable to use 1000W of computing power and 5 seconds of inference time to parse a tiny HTML fragment which would take microseconds with traditional methods - and people are cheering about it. Time for some self-reflection? That's not very green.

While energy remains cheap and human minds remain expensive, it always makes sense to use AI to reduce human effort.

If one cares about the environment, a carbon cap/tax is what you should campaign for. Then carbon-based energy sources will be curtailled, energy costs will go up, and AI like this will be encouraged to become more energy efficient or other methods used instead.

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#63

Post by Jensson »

m348e912 wrote: post #49
Drakim wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I ask an LLM a very complex and specific question 500 times, if it just doesn't know the facts you'll still get the wrong answer 500 times. That's understandable. The real problem is when the AI lies/hallucinates another answer with confidence instead of saying "I don't know".

The weird problem is with LLM hallucinations is that it usually will acknowledge its mistake and correct itself if you call it out. My question is why can't LLMs included a sub-routine to check itself before answering. Simply asking itself something like "this answer may not be correct, are you sure you're right?"

That is a common bullshitting strategy, talk a lot of bullshit, and then backtrack and acknowledge you were wrong when people push back. That way they will think you know way more than you do. Many people will see thought that, but most will just think you are a humble expert who can acknowledge when you are wrong instead of you always acknowledging you are wrong even when you aren't.

People have a really hard time catching such bullshitting from humans, which is why free form interviews doesn't work.

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#64

Post by shanehoban »

dns_snek wrote: post #56

For all the posturing and crypto hate on HN, we're entering a world where it's socially acceptable to use 1000W of computing power and 5 seconds of inference time to parse a tiny HTML fragment which would take microseconds with traditional methods - and people are cheering about it. Time for some self-reflection? That's not very green.

This is a valid point, but we are still in the early stages of AI/LLMs, so one would expect the speed and efficiency to improve drastically (perhaps accuracy too) over the coming years.

At least AI & LLMs have large scale practical applications as opposed to crypto (IMO).

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#65

Post by ZitchDog »

tosh wrote: post #38
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason for OpenAI to release the model. They have close to 100% market anyways and releasing GPT-5 likely won't increase the total market as it is a incremental leap. And it's a open secret that most other models used GPT-4 synthetic data for training to come close to it. They would likely wait till any model performs better than GPT 4 for the same price

100%? Claude 3 Opus is in the capability ballpark of GPT-4, GPT-3.5 has alternatives that are cheaper (Claude 3 Haiku) or cheaper and work offline (Qwen 1.5, Mixtral, …).

100% market share.

A competitor will likely need to be 10x better than ChatGPT in order to get significant market share, not just marginally better in certain scenarios.

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#66

Post by qup »

dns_snek wrote: post #56

For all the posturing and crypto hate on HN, we're entering a world where it's socially acceptable to use 1000W of computing power and 5 seconds of inference time to parse a tiny HTML fragment which would take microseconds with traditional methods - and people are cheering about it. Time for some self-reflection? That's not very green.

It would take microseconds after a complete program was written by a human?

It no longer requires an expert human

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#67

Post by AlchemistCamp »

shanehoban wrote: post #64
dns_snek wrote: post #56

For all the posturing and crypto hate on HN, we're entering a world where it's socially acceptable to use 1000W of computing power and 5 seconds of inference time to parse a tiny HTML fragment which would take microseconds with traditional methods - and people are cheering about it. Time for some self-reflection? That's not very green.

This is a valid point, but we are still in the early stages of AI/LLMs, so one would expect the speed and efficiency to improve drastically (perhaps accuracy too) over the coming years. At least AI & LLMs have large scale practical applications as opposed to crypto (IMO).

AI is a lot older than blockchain. There were full-fledged neural networks in the 40s and the perceptron was implemented in hardware in the 50s.

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#68

Post by luma »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #47
retrac98 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll get better. Humans are far from perfect, and I have no doubt that LLMs will eventually outperform them for non-trivial tasks consistently.

Or they might not get better. It could be that we are at a local optimum for that sort of thing, and major improvements will have to wait (perhaps for a very long time) for radical new technologies.

Maybe, but it certainly hasn’t been the arc of the past few years. I don’t know how anyone could look at this and assume that it’s likely to slow down.

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#69

Post by Jensson »

dns_snek wrote: post #56

For all the posturing and crypto hate on HN, we're entering a world where it's socially acceptable to use 1000W of computing power and 5 seconds of inference time to parse a tiny HTML fragment which would take microseconds with traditional methods - and people are cheering about it. Time for some self-reflection? That's not very green.

Websites will never be fast, will they? Even with 1000x more compute than now they will just perform everything in LLM calls and stuff are just as slow as now.

Re: OpenAI GPT-4 vs. Groq Mistral-8x7B

#70

Post by Shrezzing »

m348e912 wrote: post #49
Drakim wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I ask an LLM a very complex and specific question 500 times, if it just doesn't know the facts you'll still get the wrong answer 500 times. That's understandable. The real problem is when the AI lies/hallucinates another answer with confidence instead of saying "I don't know".

The weird problem is with LLM hallucinations is that it usually will acknowledge its mistake and correct itself if you call it out. My question is why can't LLMs included a sub-routine to check itself before answering. Simply asking itself something like "this answer may not be correct, are you sure you're right?"

>The weird problem is with LLM hallucinations is that it usually will acknowledge its mistake and correct itself if you call it out.

From what I've tested, all of the current models will see a prompt like "are you sure that's correct" and respond "no, I was incorrect [here's some other answer]", irrespective of the accuracy of the original statement.

Post reply on HN