Live data from Hacker News

AI is different

antirez.com

701–710 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting perspective.

I recall the kerfuffle about (IIRC) llama where the engineer lost his mind thinking they had spawned life in a machine and felt it was "too dangerous to release," so it's not a ludicrous take. I would hope that the first person to ask "LLM Jesus" how many Rs are in strawberry would have torpedoed the religion, but (a) I've seen dumber mind viruses (b) it hasn't yet

It wasn't Llama (Meta), it was LaMDA (Google).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/google-engineer-c...

Re: AI is different

#702
post #502
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage everyone to not claim “X seems unlikely” when it comes to high impact risks. Such a thinking pattern often leads to pruning one’s decision tree way too soon. To do well, we need to plan over an uncertain future that has many weird and unfamiliar scenarios.

We already fail to plan for a lot of high-impact things that are exceedingly likely. Maybe we should tackle those first.

I am so tired of people acting like planning for an uncertain world is a zero sum game, decided by one central actor in a single pipeline execution model. I’ll unpack this below.

The argument above (or some version of it) gets repeated over and over, but it is deeply flawed for various reasons.

The argument implies that “we” is a single agent that must do some set of things before other things. In the real world, different collections of people can work on different projects simultaneously in various orderings.

This is very different than optimizing an instruction pipeline for a single core microprocessor. In the real world, different kinds of tasks operate on very different timescales.

As an example, think about how change happens in society. Should we only talk about one problem at a time? Of course not. Why? The pipeline to solving problems is long and uncertain so you have to parallelize. Raising awareness of an issue can be relatively slow. Do you know what is even slower? Trying to reframe an issue in a way that gets into people’s brains and language patterns. Once a conceptual model exists and people pay attention, then building a movement among “early adopters” has a fighting chance. If that goes well, political influence might follow.

Re: AI is different

#703
> Yet the economic markets are reacting as if they were governed by stochastic parrots.

That's because they are. The stock market is all about narrative.

> Nor is it possible to imagine a system where a few mega companies are the only providers of intelligence.

Yes it is, the mega companies that wil be providing the intelligence are, Nvidia, AMD, TSMC, ASML, add your favourite foundry.

Re: AI is different

#704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more software AI can write, the more of a commodity software will become, and the harder the value of software will tank. It's not magic. Total size of the software industry will still increase. Today, a car repairshop might have a need for a custom software that will make their operations 20% more efficient. But they don't have nearly enough money to hire a software engineer to build it for them. With AI, it mig…

this seems pretty unlikely to me. I am not sure I have seen any non-digital business desire anything more custom than "a slightly better spreadsheet". Like, sure I can imagine a desire for something along the lines of "jailbroken vw scanner" but I think you are grossly overestimating how much software impacts a regular business's efficiency

It’s just an example. Plenty of businesses can use custom software to become more efficient but couldn’t in the past because of how expensive it was.

Re: AI is different

#705
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies don’t always compete on capability or quality. Sometimes they compete on efficiency. Or sometimes they carve up the market in different ways.

Sometimes, but with technology related companies I rarely see that. I've really only seen it in industries that are very straightforward, like producing building materials or something. Do you have any examples?

Utilities. Low cost retail. Fast food.

Amazon. Walmart. Efficiency is arguably their key competitive advantage.

This matters regarding AI systems because a lot of customers may not want to pay extra for the best models! For a lot of companies, serving a good enough model efficiently is a competitive advantage.

Re: AI is different

#706
post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption here is that LLMs will never pass the Turing test for copywriting, i.e. AI writing will always be distinguishable from human writing. Given that models that produce intelligible writing didn't exist a few years ago, that's a very bold assumption.

Today’s models are tuned to output the average quality of their corpus. This could change with varying results. What is average quality? For some it’s a massive upgrade. For others it’s a step down. For the experienced it’s seeing through it.

You're absolutely right, but AIs still have their little quirks that set them apart.

Every model has a faint personality, but since the personality gets "mass produced" any personality or writing style makes it easier to detect it as AI rather than harder. e.g. em dashes, etc.

But reducing personality doesn't help either because then the writing becomes insipid — slop.

Human writing has more variance, but it's not "temperature" (i.e. token level variance), it's per-human variance. Every writer has their own individual style. While it's certainly possible to achieve a unique writing style with LLMs through fine-tuning it's not cost effective for something like ChatGPT, so the only control is through the system prompt, which is a blunt instrument.

Re: AI is different

#707
post #622

AI has been improving at a very rapid pace, which means that a lot of people have really outdated priors. I see this all the time online where people are dismissive about AI in a way that suggests it's been a while since they last checked-in on the capabilities of models. They wrote off the coding ability of ChatGPT on version 3.5, for instance, and have missed all the advancements that have happened since. Or they t…

There is another big and growing group: charlatans (influencers). People who don't know much but make bold statements, select 'proof' cases. Just to get attention. There are many of them on youtube. When you someone on thumbnail making faces this is most likely it.

Re: AI is different

#708
post #622

AI has been improving at a very rapid pace, which means that a lot of people have really outdated priors. I see this all the time online where people are dismissive about AI in a way that suggests it's been a while since they last checked-in on the capabilities of models. They wrote off the coding ability of ChatGPT on version 3.5, for instance, and have missed all the advancements that have happened since. Or they t…

But the reports are from shills. The impact of ai is almost non existent. The greatest impact it had was on role-playing. It's hardly even useful for coding.

And that all wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the wave of bots that makes the crypto wave seem like child's play.

Re: AI is different

#709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

economics being deeply imperfect doesn’t really change my point

Indeed, but I think it renders your point obsolete, since deeply imperfect resource allocation isn't really resource allocation at all, it is (in this case) resource accumulation. Are you suggesting that compound interest serves to redistribute the wealth coming from extractive industries?

Are you suggesting that economics is primarily concerned with compounding interest?

Re: AI is different

#710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no matter what you ask AI to do, it’s going to give you an “average“ answer. Even if you tell it to use a very distinct specific voice and write in a very specific tone, it’s going to give you the “average“ specific voice and tone you’ve asked for. AI is the antithesis of creativity and originality. This gives me hope.

What is creative or original thought? You are not the first person to say this after all.

Not being 100% algorithmically or mathematically derived is a good start. I’m certain there’s more but to me this is a minimum bar.
Post reply on HN