5 ms·

You are in a serious case of denial right now. Edit: Only took a few hours before in real life what I was trying to imply the denial was about is already happ

You are in a serious case of denial right now. Edit: Only took a few hours before in real life what I was trying to imply the denial was about is already happening: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855416

saurik 4y ago
I am claiming there are two paths: one where this (specific) branch of tech is a dead end, and one where it doesn't matter how much bullshit exists in the training set (and so we shouldn't be too concerned about that). I claim this is the case because a truly intelligent system will still be able to learn despite the bullshit. Do you believe this is wrong? That I should simultaneously be concerned that some iteration of this tech--not some different concept but this current lineage of large models--is intelligent and yet ALSO that it isn't going to work because the training set is full of garbage? The version of this tech that works--and maybe someone is working on it right now--isn't going to care about bullshit in the training set. That simply doesn't seem to be a mere scale-up of this tech to run in more computers (or, of course, using more training data): that seems like it requires a fundamentally different algorithm concept.
- anon7725 4y ago
  You can interact with the system and see that it is working on some level today. It’s not hard to extrapolate where its capabilities will be a few years from now, since these are changes of degree not of kind. We have witnessed the change of kind with this model. Is it intelligent? A great question for science, and one that could be investigated while entire industries are upended by this thing.
  - saurik 4y ago
    Oh yeah, it totally works! I have even had quite a bit of fun with Stable Diffusion. I'd probably also be playing with something like Copilot if it were open source. But like, the person I am responding to is concerned--as are many people--that we are going to flood the world with shitty training data and then no longer be able to build these models... and that's either not the case and no one should concern themselves with that or, alternatively, these models need some fundamental improvement before they don't have the property of only being as good as average inputs.
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      Edit: Already happening https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855416 So I’ll respond here instead as the conversation progressed. I would say the quality of the input data is likely very important component and I think you are wrong overall in your opinion. I would say the quality of input training data is so important that I’ve personally been thinking I should probably start data hoarding myself, specifically around my skillsets. Additionally when you understand that embedding like word2vec are perhaps a significant part of the improvement, not just the transformers, it occurs that adding symbolic capabilities, like classic symbolic reasoning and for example symbolic computing, like Mathematica, then maybe provide also true computational power, floating point, so it can write, debug, and execute it’s own output… it must be getting closer and closer to AGI. when you play with the system, which I feel most of the commenters on HN which are being dismissive likely have not personally spent enough time exploring it’s current capabilities, then there is no way any well trained and experienced SWE isn’t blown away. This is why I said you are in denial. I happen to thing AGI will be very beneficial for humanity and I also think this is a positive for SWE by humans, including myself. I will very likely be a paying customer when the trial ends in a few weeks.
      - mk_stjames 4y ago
        I feel like I'm watching some things unfold at a rate I haven't seen before. We have having people write scripts and API access at the speed of thought and then interface parts of the web and test it that previously hasn't had this speed in the feedback loop ever before. I also think a lot of people are doing things right now as a "I'll be the first..." with an idea to have fun and write a script that spams X, not thinking about the fact that there are a lot of others doing X too. The waves are just starting. I don't think we are having to worry about the AI making itself smarter AI just yet.. we need to first be worrying about people drowning us with the help of AI.
    - mike_hearn 4y ago
      There are only a handful of firms that can produce results to this level and they are presumably logging everything their model produces. Eliminating text that was produced by their model from the training set would be easy. Now, if the tech reaches the point where there are thousands of firms offering free access to the models and they aren't co-operating to share logs then yes. But we have no idea how expensive or hard ChatGPT is to run. It might be a Google-type situation where only one or two firms in the world can build and run competitive chatbots.

saurik 4y ago

I am claiming there are two paths: one where this (specific) branch of tech is a dead end, and one where it doesn't matter how much bullshit exists in the training set (and so we shouldn't be too concerned about that). I claim this is the case because a truly intelligent system will still be able to learn despite the bullshit. Do you believe this is wrong? That I should simultaneously be concerned that some iteration of this tech--not some different concept but this current lineage of large models--is intelligent and yet ALSO that it isn't going to work because the training set is full of garbage? The version of this tech that works--and maybe someone is working on it right now--isn't going to care about bullshit in the training set. That simply doesn't seem to be a mere scale-up of this tech to run in more computers (or, of course, using more training data): that seems like it requires a fundamentally different algorithm concept.

anon7725 4y ago
You can interact with the system and see that it is working on some level today. It’s not hard to extrapolate where its capabilities will be a few years from now, since these are changes of degree not of kind. We have witnessed the change of kind with this model. Is it intelligent? A great question for science, and one that could be investigated while entire industries are upended by this thing.
- saurik 4y ago
  Oh yeah, it totally works! I have even had quite a bit of fun with Stable Diffusion. I'd probably also be playing with something like Copilot if it were open source. But like, the person I am responding to is concerned--as are many people--that we are going to flood the world with shitty training data and then no longer be able to build these models... and that's either not the case and no one should concern themselves with that or, alternatively, these models need some fundamental improvement before they don't have the property of only being as good as average inputs.
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    Edit: Already happening https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855416 So I’ll respond here instead as the conversation progressed. I would say the quality of the input data is likely very important component and I think you are wrong overall in your opinion. I would say the quality of input training data is so important that I’ve personally been thinking I should probably start data hoarding myself, specifically around my skillsets. Additionally when you understand that embedding like word2vec are perhaps a significant part of the improvement, not just the transformers, it occurs that adding symbolic capabilities, like classic symbolic reasoning and for example symbolic computing, like Mathematica, then maybe provide also true computational power, floating point, so it can write, debug, and execute it’s own output… it must be getting closer and closer to AGI. when you play with the system, which I feel most of the commenters on HN which are being dismissive likely have not personally spent enough time exploring it’s current capabilities, then there is no way any well trained and experienced SWE isn’t blown away. This is why I said you are in denial. I happen to thing AGI will be very beneficial for humanity and I also think this is a positive for SWE by humans, including myself. I will very likely be a paying customer when the trial ends in a few weeks.
    - mk_stjames 4y ago
      I feel like I'm watching some things unfold at a rate I haven't seen before. We have having people write scripts and API access at the speed of thought and then interface parts of the web and test it that previously hasn't had this speed in the feedback loop ever before. I also think a lot of people are doing things right now as a "I'll be the first..." with an idea to have fun and write a script that spams X, not thinking about the fact that there are a lot of others doing X too. The waves are just starting. I don't think we are having to worry about the AI making itself smarter AI just yet.. we need to first be worrying about people drowning us with the help of AI.
  - mike_hearn 4y ago
    There are only a handful of firms that can produce results to this level and they are presumably logging everything their model produces. Eliminating text that was produced by their model from the training set would be easy. Now, if the tech reaches the point where there are thousands of firms offering free access to the models and they aren't co-operating to share logs then yes. But we have no idea how expensive or hard ChatGPT is to run. It might be a Google-type situation where only one or two firms in the world can build and run competitive chatbots.