4 ms·

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 no

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.
  - anon7725 4y ago
    I don’t think it’s a race to build the best/cheapest model for public consumption. Someone is going to build or renovate a law firm/enterprise software company/investment bank/medical expert system/etc around this technology. Perhaps it will be a joint venture between tech companies and subject experts. It’s possible for each executive to have a mentat who can whisper to the machine instead of a department of programmers/middle management/ops people/accountants/lawyers/etc. Doesn’t seem so far-fetched after a day of playing with this system.
    - mike_hearn 4y ago
      We'll see. Most people in any industry don't want to be reduced to the role of just fact-checking a professional BS generator. It'd be terrible for morale and not obviously more productive, given that any time the user even suspects an answer might be wrong they'll have to do significant skilled research work to fact check it. Unless you get the untruthfulness problem down to a small percentage of the output you could easily just create negative value there, sort of like how poor programmers are sometimes described as producing negative for their team because others have to run around correcting their work.

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.
- anon7725 4y ago
  I don’t think it’s a race to build the best/cheapest model for public consumption. Someone is going to build or renovate a law firm/enterprise software company/investment bank/medical expert system/etc around this technology. Perhaps it will be a joint venture between tech companies and subject experts. It’s possible for each executive to have a mentat who can whisper to the machine instead of a department of programmers/middle management/ops people/accountants/lawyers/etc. Doesn’t seem so far-fetched after a day of playing with this system.
  - mike_hearn 4y ago
    We'll see. Most people in any industry don't want to be reduced to the role of just fact-checking a professional BS generator. It'd be terrible for morale and not obviously more productive, given that any time the user even suspects an answer might be wrong they'll have to do significant skilled research work to fact check it. Unless you get the untruthfulness problem down to a small percentage of the output you could easily just create negative value there, sort of like how poor programmers are sometimes described as producing negative for their team because others have to run around correcting their work.