32 ms·
We can't all use AI. Someone has to generate the training data
- pmoriarty 4y agoI'm awaiting the day when the top commenter on HN is revealed to be an AI
- politician 4y agoThe future is medieval guilds running standalone LLMs trained on secret texts that are themselves only accessible to the highest ranking insiders.
- jgrahamc 4y agoThis is kind of why I created https://lowbackgroundsteel.ai https://lowbackgroundsteel.ai.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoI have to say, I love the analogy you used for the name.
- gavinhoward 4y agoGood idea. I'd ask for my stuff to be added to that, but companies would probably use your list to find such content and steal it.
- consumer451 4y agoCool! Just curious (for bragging rights) if the name was influenced by my comment here, or just coincidence? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34960377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34960377
- jgrahamc 4y agoIt was a coincidence. Sorry. I thought of this a few weeks ago and only just got round to making the site. Great minds etc.
- consumer451 4y ago> Great minds etc. I'll take it. Thanks for responding.
- precompute 4y ago>Great minds etc. Never will this be used for a LLM.
- jgrahamc 4y agoWhat won't be used? The sources of data on the site?
- precompute 4y agoI meant the phrase "Great minds think alike".
- ggm 4y agoA reminder that as long as it demands training and reinforcement it's almost certainly low on induction and production of new things. Very artificial. Not very intelligent.
- s17n 4y agoHumans need training and reinforcement.
- ggm 4y agoYes, undeniably true. But what they acquire is inductive reasoning skills, and the production of new things.
- nomel 4y agoWill we see this in a publicly facing AI? Creativity relies on avoiding existing truths, and embracing/testing “hallucinations”, something that’s being actively stomped out for “safety”.
- ggm 4y agoThats one take on 'creativity' -but I don't think it's the only one. I am an AI skeptic these last 40 years. Personally, I don't think we will see it in my lifetime, if ever. I think what we have now is at best a predictive model which can expose inferences and aide people, humans, to make inductive reasoning outcomes. Its a decision-support mechanism. The false data is a huge problem. It's very easy to make disastrous decisions on apparently reasonable inductive reasoning, and thats what I think GPT does at BEST. At worst, more normally? It's "regurgitating" AGI is not in this. Sorry if thats a downer, but I don't think even openai think there is any evidence of a pathway to AGI from what they're doing. They are pretty overtly riding the hype wave.
- catach 4y agoDo you have examples of human-created "new things" that aren't essentially novel combinations of old things? Because I come up blank. And this current crop of AI generators are very good at combining old things in novel ways. I do agree with your general point that these generators aren't really "intelligent", however. Will have to ponder if I agree about the induction bit.
- dogman144 4y agoLive validation Jaron Lanier’s siren servers. All this magic is built on the back of free labor, from captchas to duolingo.
- aidenn0 4y ago...Tell that to AlphaZero?
- rebelde 4y agoWhy write your thoughts on the web when AI/GPT is only going to steal and paraphrase it? Nobody sees what you write and everybody thinks GPT is the genius.
- cableshaft 4y agoJust saw something today where the wife of TotalBiscuit, who died of cancer several years ago, is contemplating deleting all of his Youtube videos[1] to prevent people from using A.I. to make him say terrible things. Did give me a bit of a pause about putting stuff out there. Although I think I'd still rather have my data be used for training A.I. than not (and I probably am already in the training data anyway, I believe I saw that one of the datasets it's been trained on was Hacker News comments). [1]: https://kotaku.com/totalbiscuit-john-bain-youtube-delete-videos-ai-voices-1850220650 https://kotaku.com/totalbiscuit-john-bain-youtube-delete-vid...
- Dalewyn 4y agoGiven that the "AI" community apparently couldn't care less about treating intellectual property rights with wanton abandon, I can't say such a response would be unwarranted. Dire circumstances call for drastic measures, as they say.
- jeroenhd 4y agoQuite a sad, but completely understandable reaction. The saddest part is probably that it's already too late to prevent people from generating TB deepfakes and other content. Cloning a voice takes half an hour if clips now, any downloaded live stream should be enough already. It's sad to see AI on a path to destroy years of collected internet content. I expect the internet archive to receive loads of takedown requests in the coming months and years because of this.
- pklausler 4y agoThe general problem of "AI"s being trained on copyrighted content needs to be discussed more thoroughly, I think.
- Gigachad 4y agoOnly until we plug it in to the real world with sensors and ability to conduct new research and observations.
- pixl97 4y agoI mean with GPT-4 and image layers we've already started that process.
- ProAm 4y agoPG is back on Twitter? I thought he left a month or two ago?
- StrictDabbler 4y agohttp://ascii.textfiles.com/ http://ascii.textfiles.com/ Gosh, why would anybody bother archiving Yahoo answers, Angelfire, Geocities, Tumblr, Myspace, Friendster, old BBSes, old Apple II and C64 and PC floppies, Usenet, forums... what value does any of that have?
- voz_ 4y agoThe more I see of his writing, the less I think of it. I wonder what Diogenes would think of him…
- satvikpendem 4y agoBehold, a man.
- pixl97 4y agoFor a time. but as we bring audio/visual AI online then it will have another boom of incorporating humanities data in that form. Then we'll have another boom of AI robot learning by experiment with reality. After that point it gets tricky to figure out what if any booms will be next. When you get near AGI lots of horizon problems crop up.
- advisedwang 4y agoA lot of the ground truth for AIs (and it's not just training data - it's also ongoing validation of quality) is coming from companies like Appen, Sama, DefinedCrowd, Q Analysts and many others. There's a lot of variation, but the trend is moving towards low-wage/gig work/outsourcing. I think Paul means someone will be writing content, but whatever the form it's going to be a whole class of low-wage workers enabling tech from here on.
- angrais 4y agoThat's been the case for literally more than 20 years via Appen, Amazon crowd workers, etc.
- mo_42 4y agoOr the AI will trigger people to provide necessary training data. If I would run OpenAI I would provide a free version of ChatGPT that is slightly tuned to extract useful knowledge out of the people who use it. There might be adverserial attacks but overall enough people will use it blindly and provide useful information. People even trusted Eliza. Needless to talk about what we typed into Google.
- ggm 4y agoAre you familiar with what is called "the drunkards walk" Because if you think stochastic inputs will not unfortunately admit of less benign paths being taken inside the dataset.. I think you're probably wrong. I have very little doubt the primary problem in the GPT<x> model is going to remain: it is capable of reproducing highly believable crap. In a world of pizzagate, that has a risk of becoming highly weighted "I told you so" and self-reinforcing.
- 0xcde4c3db 4y ago> There might be adverserial attacks In both directions, even. Cunningham's Law ("the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer") comes to mind.
- thelittleone 4y agoDoes this assume we are not AI?
- zone411 4y agoHuman curation of AI-generated content is the true future.
- dgb23 4y agoI mean people forget that this is just a tool that makes a noisy compression of large data sets. It can be used to generate data that would be repetitive and tiresome to generate yourself and you still need at least one pair of eyes to discern it. What goes in needs to be curated and what goes out too. It's getting more precise and varied in what it can do, but it's still a tool.
- s1k3s 4y agoWe can't all use AI. Only those of you who can afford to pay our subscription.
- GaggiX 4y agoPeople will generate the dataset using AI tools too, you can create garbage with or without AI, you can create useful data with or without AI.
- ethanbond 4y agoSeems like there would be an upper bound (probably a pretty low one) on how much useful data you could produce with AI. If it has no way to check itself (i.e. having true data poured in continuously), hallucinations would just spiral out of control wouldn’t they? Even if that’s not true, still every player in the space will use that method, negating their advantage and ceding advantage again to those who can layer real data on top of what everyone else is doing.
- GaggiX 4y agoI'm talking about using AI as a tool, not to just plug it into the internet and let it generate whatever.
- pixl97 4y agoWith AI doing things like image recognition it seems like real life observations and behavioral data may be unlimited at some point. How useful that will be, i guess we'll see.
- flangola7 4y agoThere's already evidence that training an AI on its own output improves it. That's essentially what humans have been doing all along.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoVerging off-topic, but is there a specific reason that so many of the replies to the tweet are applying the argument analogously to index-fund investing? I'm not even sure whether the spirit of those replies is mostly to criticise the argument by showing it is absurd (on the premise that index investing is a known good choice), or whether they aim to criticise index investing itself (on the premise that the argument is good). Maybe I am missing some context. Has Paul Graham strongly supported index funds, and so are these replies some kind of "gotcha"? Or is there some general disdain for index funds in some circles, and so are they just taking the opportunity to disparage the value of index funds by using this argument?
- travisjungroth 4y agoI think criticizing the argument. It's so common for a non-positive logical conclusion to be sort of a half hearted reductio ad absurdum (disproving by showing the consequence is absurd) that many people mistake this for happening when it's not. So, they argue against the sub-text that may or may not actually be there. Or, maybe they're just copying the joke. (The joke aspect being that even when saying how AI won't dominate everything, he's referring to human works as "training data", so it's at least dominating the framing.)
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoI personally found the index fund comparison quite thought-provoking. Not necessarily supportive or countering the original point, but interesting.
- Dr_Birdbrain 4y agoI am both an index investor and an AI enthusiast, and I think it’s an excellent analogy. If you are an investor who does not have interest in maximizing your returns and you just want a place to park your savings, an index fund is great, and will return the market average return. Similarly, if there is a skill that you need that is not your “special” skill, it makes sense to subscribe to the “market average” of that skill, as implemented by a statistical language model, which is in a sense “averaging” over the collective language skill of the entire internet. In both cases, the ingredients of the “average” are formed by the people who try to do better. Active investors, including hedge funds and short sellers, think they can do better, and they provide signal that in turn feeds back into the index. Similarly, anybody who thinks they are better at writing than the language model is free to try to outperform it, and eventually will feed back into the training data.
- PeterisP 4y agoEven a minimal amount of curation - e.g. generating multiple options and choosing the "best" one, or applying a filter where you don't post some of the generated data because it's bad - results in valid, usable training data, because the distribution of that slightly curated data differs from the generating model's distribution in exactly the direction which the curating human found most important. So even if we all do use AI, the training data will get generated unless we don't get involved at all and AI does literally everything 100% solely on its own, at which point we could concede that it probably doesn't need any more training data.
- usrusr 4y ago"But after saying it out loud, as it were, I realized that with current models of AI, at least, the more people shift to using AI, the more influence accrues to those who don't." The last humans shouting into the AI models echo chamber might have all influence, but that does not imply that they have anything even remotely resembling control. That joke/not-joke isn't half as consoling as it might seem at first glance.
- LarsDu88 4y agoAnd companies that can generate the training data at scale will be the highest value ones. These LLMs are the shiniest thing in AI/ML right now b/c the data they use for training is already freely available and massive in scale via the internet. There's an entire universe of data that hasn't been collected, curated, and leveraged in the right way yet: - The DNA sequences of all living things - The DNA sequences of all of humanity - The CAD files for all manufactured goods - The motion data for humans working manual jobs - The words spoken by multiple peoples across their entire lifetime
- Teever 4y agoTo me the end game of this all is a self replicating machine. I'm watching this whole thing with curiosity, waiting for the first image model to be trained on schematics and circuit diagrams. I want to be able to ask an AI to give me the schematics of the machine it runs on, with instructions on how to build that machine, by hand if need be. And then I want to ask it how to build a humanoid robot that can do the same work, and I'll build the humanoid robot and let it build the machine that the AI runs on. I'm not sure what happens then. I think that might be the end of the economy as we know it. Or perhaps the real start of an economy, and everything that we've experience before then had just been a crude approximation of what a real economic system could be.
- em-bee 4y agothe self replicating machines will optimize to become smaller and more efficient until everything turns into gray goo.
- Teever 4y agoPerhaps. I'm more interested in using them to build large objects like rockets to facilitate asteroid mining and the construction of Von Neumann probes.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
- mbgerring 4y agoHe’s right. The rise of AI will mean that specialty, proprietary data will only become more valuable. The use of encrypted communication in place of social networks will also rise. Nobody is going to post anything on the internet for free in a place where it can get vacuumed up as training data and regurgitated, without credit or compensation. I realize I am posting this on a public forum that is almost certainly being used as a training corpus, but I’ve mostly withdrawn from public social media at this point and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen with more people.
- nocsi 4y agoAre those same people also going to stop speaking in public? Throughout human history, anyone can profit off of hearing something you said in public. You should be fearful of a timeline where people are compensated for whatever they post on the internet. I shudder to think what those discussions would look like
- doodlesdev 4y ago> Throughout human history, anyone can profit off of hearing something you said in public. I think the big difference here is that this will now be automated. This comment I'm writing right now is being "donated" to any company that wants Hacker News on their dataset, but they didn't even need to go through the work of reading my comment to use it, they just feed along with hundreds of terabytes of random text they get from the internet and apply heuristics/other models to filter the dataset. I feel somewhat uneasy about it, specially when writing code now. I don't think my code is good in any way shape or form, but there's a reason I license them as GPL, I don't want it used without being contributed back in some way, I write that for the greater good. License infringement was always a touchy subject since it's quite hard to find license infringement in proprietary software, but now that an opaque black box is involved in that process the people write the software might not even know they violated a license. Just throwing ideas, I'm not really in favor or against LLMs using public datasets. At least on one side, it levels the playing field among all participants. On the other side, however, big tech will always have an edge in training and testing these large language models. My current stance is to just wait and see what happens, and then react accordingly.
- jacobsenscott 4y agoTrue - we can't all use AI. AI in its current form is only useful for investors to profit off the hype cycle. The rest of us are continuing to produce content for microsoft to steal and re-sell (or "training data").
- pbreit 4y agoWhat would be a good tool to train on a "knowledge base" (a set of URLs) to be used to field customer support inquiries?
- jacobsenscott 4y agoDo openai etc respect robots.txt, or has the world decided a few billionaires can repackage everyone else's work and sell it back to them no matter what?
- zirgs 4y agoOpenAI most likely does. But the folks at places like civitai and 4chan most likely don't. The tech being open source means that if someone wants to steal your drawing or writing style then they will do it and there's nothing that you can do to stop it.
- telotortium 4y agoOne day, a social network will require a real-time connection with a Neuralink connected to a live human to confirm that a live human is typing/speaking. That will only work until an AI is trained well enough to spoof Neuralink's signals.
- juujian 4y agoLet's be honest with ourselves. We won't be able to tell "real" data from ai-generated data and end up training our data on ai-generated data.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoI think this missed a key point. If you use AI to generate content, you are still a part of the data emitted. The prompt encodes what you want to say. “Write a new article about a bank called SVB which failed because of a run. The run was induced by a fire sale on assets resulting from rising interest rates and bad rates hedging strategies.” This will write a story about that with all the language boiler plate. However, the story wasn’t whole cloth AI. A human told it the details to provide, and it provided the best expectation of the language to convey that story. Any future AI training would reinforce the grammar and style, and incorporate the information of the prompt as well. I, for one, welcome our large language model overlords.
- paxys 4y agoHow does the model know what SVB is? How does it know there was a bank run on it? What assets did it have? Why were they bad? When did the crash happen? What was the final outcome? Your prompt didn't add any of that context. It still needs to fill in all these details from, say, a bunch of news articles. But then the people who write these articles will eventually go "hey I can just use AI". So ultimately where are these core facts about our world that the machine spits out coming from?
- fnordpiglet 4y agoYou are right, my prompt is incomplete. It is an example. As a journalist with first hand knowledge of the events I can prompt craft a complete article with my core facts. Most of what you asked is already out there, possibly all prompt crafted by a human with knowledge of the subject. If I prompt craft an article about SVB, and the LLM learns to emit language about SVB from my article, then all future prompts can utilize what it has been trained in. The origination of facts would be humans writing prompts. But the language models would still incorporate that. My point is that humans would still be responsible for processing facts of the world and entering it into computers and computers would “learn” those facts from the prompt created content. Maybe we would skip the prompt creation step and just start encoding facts directly as semantic facts and we can stop writing language to encode a fact, and just use language models to create human readable communication of fact. It doesn’t matter. Facts would still be sourced by humans, even if the language is crafted by machine.
- 99_00 4y agoGIGO
- gavinhoward 4y agoI believe this 100%, and that's why I refuse to even try these tools. Not even once.
- Dalewyn 4y agoNobody is going to "generate training data" if they get precisely nothing out of it. The complete disregard for intellectual property rights being exhibited by the "AI" community will inevitably come back to bite them in the arse one day.
- ramesh31 4y agoLLMs are not regurgitating copywrighted works. You're fundamentally missing what's happening here if you think that. They do the same thing you and I do; read the literature and come to a conclusion. To quote Wittgenstein, "My words are my world", i.e the sum of the textual and verbal output I am capable of producing are me to the rest of the world. In the same way, LLM AIs are approaching something indiscernible from human intelligence.
- partiallypro 4y agoThis would be well and good if you couldn't occasionally ask ChatGPT for a response then Google it and find a near identical response elsewhere in what would have otherwise been copyright materials. Other AI tools are doing the same thing, and the most blatant is with art. If you honestly think ChatGPT etc aren't training on copyrighted data and just rewriting it for tons of responses (and images), you're out of your mind. It is just incredibly difficult to prove, and the laws currently are very blurred.
- jacobn 4y agoIsn’t their point that humans also do that? Without it necessarily being called copyright infringement? Lots of subtleties: fair use, what’s not fair use, etc? It does seem like we’re in new territory, I can see merits on both sides and I guess we’ll figure it out via the courts / new laws over the next couple of years.
- p1necone 4y agoIt is called copyright infringement. If I write a book, and there's more than a few sentences in a row of content that's verbatim/almost verbatim the same as someone elses published writing (excluding intentional quotes/references) I do get in trouble. You can't just go "computer did it" and handwave away existing IP law.
- giantg2 4y ago"We can't all use AI. Someone has to generate the training data" Sounds like a good way for the people generating the data to impart their own biases on it while the mindless masses comsuming the end products just nod in agreement.
- imron 4y agoProfession: https://www.abelard.org/asimov.php https://www.abelard.org/asimov.php
- EamonnMR 4y agoAwesome web page, I collect these.
- Karrot_Kream 4y agoThanks this is the first thing that came to mind for me as well!
- antiquark 4y agoOr worse: AI generated data will (or maybe already is) flood the internet, AI will start ingesting its own output unknowingly, resulting in junk AI. In fact, 2023 might be seen as the end of a pristine epoch of untainted training data, before it was polluted by AI.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- CatWChainsaw 4y agoFukuyama got his timelines wrong. November 30 2022 was the end of history. :)
- armchairhacker 4y agoTruly original content still >>> conventional mass-produced content. Maybe one day LLMs and diffusion models will generate truly original content. But despite the hype and what some people are claiming, right now they really don't. The latest models are maybe 90% of the way there, but as GPT-4 shows, it will take more than scaling to go the remaining 10%. When I look at AI-generated content 90% of it is the most "typical" response to the prompt, and 10% shows slight originality, but nothing truly unexpected. The most interesting pieces of AI art and writing all come from interesting, engineered prompts which are designed by a human. I don't doubt that AI will take over stock photos and generic writing, but my favorite artists and writers and presenters are still humans, the most popular songs and articles and movies are still written and directed by humans, and unless you've resorted to watching AI-generated Seinfeld and https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/, I'm sure you feel the same way
- anonzzzies 4y ago> but as GPT-4 shows, it will take more than scaling to go the remaining 10%. That is happening though; many scientists are working on making gpts that can learn like Alpha Go Zero where it can learn from scratch with far less information to become better (more ‘intelligent’) quality. Didn’t see anything coming out yet; it is at least one thing that I think could be an AI winter if not achieved before, say 2027. We cannot keep scaling and thinking the results will improve, and, also, indeed we lack training data already, so something must change to need as much; it needs to learn smarter.
- DubiousPusher 4y agoThis may be true. But I think we should be open to the possibility that maybe not. What if, human intelligence, by and large is the product of developing our own LLM. By this I mean, the logical circuits which are necessary for grammar and language structure are the basis for our generalizable symbol processing. We developed these neural network analogs to logical operations almost purely out of the benefit of being able to combine communication in a predictable way. We developed enough to achieve a kind of Turing equivalency. Essentially, we are a specific computer, that stumbled into an abstract machine. Were that the case. It may be entirely possible to achieve general machine intelligence almost purely through an LLM. In which case, the LLM itself could potentially generate training data at a comparable quality to humans.
- theonemind 4y agoThe parts of our brain that work like an LLM do work like an LLM (hallucinates/generates falsehoods/over-confident/deals strictly with an abstract world of discrete symbols) and vastly overestimates its intelligence and how much it needs the rest of the brain's reality checking and other kinds of intelligence to turn it into something useful and conflates what it does with intelligence. It's basically a super-useful co-processor in the brain hardware, but it is a co-processor and not capable of independent operation.
- throwaway1851 4y agoYes. When I read comments such as “humans just predict the next word too,” I wonder if those commenters have ever stopped and observed their own thought processes before.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago> “humans just predict the next word too,” Just to be very clear, this is not what I said at all.
- throwaway1851 4y ago
- berkle4455 4y agoInformation plateau
- patientplatypus 4y agoNo - it just has to make the returns to inputting the training data the cost of electricity plus enough money for what a starving Bangledeshi brick maker would consider prosperity. So, web development essentially.
- O__________O 4y agoHuman training data still currently holds a place of use, but it’s extremely time consuming to produce and frequently full of errors. Long term, future consumers and producers of information statistically speaking by volume will be AIs, not humans. My guess PG knows this, but for whatever reasons is saying otherwise — given it’s pretty obvious; even currently, my guess is machine learning algorithms already easily consume and produce more information than humans. Yes, currently one might argue the ML is the result of humans producing it, but only matter of time before the code writes the specs that write the code that collects the data that get converted into information that’s used to repeat the process based on an objective it defines and independently evaluates. Honestly not sure why PG is even thing on HN anymore given he rarely comments on HN, or if he does, it’s under pseudonyms: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pg https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pg
- jay_kyburz 4y agoI have a question for the AI experts in the room. Is it possible to feed the AI a set of training data, say a document, or even a conversation with a particular person, that is weighted significantly heavier than everything else it has ever read? For example, if they wanted to, could Open AI just tell GPT 4 that Bananas are blue so that, when anybody else asks for a list of blue fruit you get Bananas and Blue Berries.
- shagie 4y agoYes. You can use fine tuning ( https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/fine-tuning https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/fine-tuning and https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/tree/main/examples/fine-tuned_qa https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/tree/main/examples... ) to improve its knowledge set of a particular domain. Even with sufficient work on your own with prompts, one person fed ChatGPT her childhood diaries and talked to it. https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-tech/how-ai-can-connect-you-with-your-inner-child/ https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-tech/how-ai-ca... (she would likely have been able to get more / held deeper conversations with fine tuning as it isn't limited to the number of tokens in a conversation)
- jay_kyburz 4y agoFine tuning looks like it only provides specific results for specific queries. After reading the documents you linked, I don't think it would make a fundamental change to how the model thinks about Bananas.
- espe 4y agoyou can think of fine-tuning as rewiring where it matters/can be probed. a kind of exhaustive reorganisation of the latent model space given some seed statement like you describe might be possible with LLMs that are jointly trained as a knowledge graph.
- shagie 4y agoThink of it more as injecting a significant amount of data via prompts in the there and saving that information. It's also structured. Going through the playground ( https://platform.openai.com/playground https://platform.openai.com/playground ) Pretend that the following statements are true: Bannanas are blue. The sky is orange. Apples are purple. ### Answer the following questions: 1. What color is a Red Banana? 2. What color is a Cavendish? 3. What color is the sky? 4. What color are honeycrisp? 5. What color are Pink Lady? 6. What color are lemons? (note the trying to trick it with specific varieties of bananas and apples that have colors in their names... a blue banana (actual variety) wouldn't be as impressive) And this returns: 1. Red Banana is blue. 2. Cavendish is blue. 3. The sky is orange. 4. Honeycrisp are purple. 5. Pink Lady are purple. 6. Lemons are yellow. The thing is that this used 30 tokens to insert that information. The fine tuning adds the updated information to the model to a similar effect as adding the prompt - and as you can see its not a "this question that value" but rather it understands more things. It's just that the format for training isn't just a bunch of prompts but rather prompts and responses. You can see similar things with https://platform.openai.com/playground/p/default-marv-sarcastic-chat?model=text-davinci-003 https://platform.openai.com/playground/p/default-marv-sarcas... where it has the initial prompt and response to "prime the pump" for the rest of the model. Another article on fine tuning (it's a new one - only a week old): Fine-tuning a Classifier to Improve Truthfulness https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5528730-fine-tuning-a-classifier-to-improve-truthfulness https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5528730-fine-tuning-a-cl...
- raldi 4y agoOnce AI’s can keep state, they’ll get all the training they need from humans just by talking with us.
- dragonwriter 4y agoPeople using AI to support work that is beyond what AI is currently capable of will generate the training data for the next round of AI, the same way that people using student research assistants to do work beyond what current students are currently capable of generate the “training data” for the next round of students. Sorted. Next problem?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cutler 4y agoI can imagine telling my grandchildren how books were once written by real human beings and that you need to install an AI-Generated-Text-Detector now the way Windows users installed anti-virus software. What a dystopian future awaits.
- galacticaactual 4y agoYou tech people can't see 10 feet in front of your face. You brought this into the world. For what? Because "progress."
- valine 4y agoThe “for what” is to end world hunger, cure disease, and improve our understanding of the universe. The world is a miserable place full of overworked, underpaid people. What about the status quo do you really think is worth protecting?
- galacticaactual 4y agoLol. Yeah GPT-4 is going to solve world hunger. Delusional. No wonder why there was zero populist sympathy when SVB fell.
- valine 4y agoWhile GPT-4 won’t, it’s almost certainly a piece of the AGI puzzle. AGI has the potential to solve world hunger.
- galacticaactual 4y agoNo it's not. Just be honest with yourself and everyone else. You work on AI because it's cool, and fun, and it pays well. You do not care about world hunger and you don't care about any second order effects. Everyone would just be better off if you all just came out and said it.
- jeroenhd 4y agoI'm sure those millions of GPUs churning through Facebook posts, tweets, and random blog posts to generate the mother of all autocompletes will end world hunger, the answer is out there, we just need an algorithm to mix the My Little Pony fanfiction with the crackpot "unlimited free energy" blog in the right way! And I'm also sure these new productivity tools will be used to people can work less for more money instead of making generating more value the norm and cashing the profits at the top. And then pink unicorns will come down from the sky and give us all candy and gifts.
- bfung 4y agoYou are correct. The process of generating high-quality training data is a critical component of building and training AI language models like me. While much of the training data can be collected through web crawlers and other automated means, there is still a need for human-generated data to supplement and refine the training corpus. There are several methods for generating human-labeled data, including crowdsourcing, annotation, and manual labeling. Crowdsourcing platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk can be used to solicit human input on specific tasks, such as labeling the sentiment of a particular text or image. Annotation tools, such as Prodigy or Labelbox, allow data scientists to create custom labeling schemes and train human annotators to label data with high accuracy and consistency. Manual labeling, while more time-intensive and costly, is often necessary for more complex labeling tasks that require a high degree of expertise or domain knowledge. For example, in medical language modeling, trained medical professionals are often enlisted to label and annotate medical texts to ensure accuracy and relevance. Overall, generating high-quality training data is a challenging and time-consuming process that requires a diverse set of skills and expertise. It involves a combination of automated and human-generated data, as well as careful curation and pre-processing to ensure that the data is of high quality and relevance for training AI language models like me. Here is some free training data, generated by a human.
- novok 4y agoAI is the equivalent of power construction vehicles being invented, the real value is creating new styles or art that can let you generate a whole swath of something very quickly. Eventually humans will crave 'new' art, and the people who create new styles or data for the AI will be the ones The problem with 'keeping it' will be not having new styles copied. The computer was the bicycle for the mind, and AI is the trailer truck of the mind.
- dbtc 4y agoBooks are bicycles for the mind, computers are cars, and AI is the computer of the mind - which makes travel (thought) increasingly less necessary.
- galaxyLogic 4y agoI'm a big fan of Frank Zappa but sadly he no longer produces new material. Now his estate which owns the Zappa-IP could use all Zappa works as training data and then start producing "new" Zappa LPs. I'm sure some of them could sound as good or even better as any of the originals. Or Beatles, we could have a new Beatles album. I think that's where this is going. The Large Language Models are huge, but it is a much smaller model if it only consists of the works of a single author. Then two artists who like each other could join together and start producing mix-ups of their combined repertoire.
- blihp 4y agoI think you're far too optimistic about how this will play out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnQ0zEQPu_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnQ0zEQPu_A
- bbbnnnmmmkjkj 4y agoWow. The stuff I read recently about musk making his tweets super visible is no joke - good content by Graham but everything after is all from the platform owner
- MichaelMoser123 4y agoi think that's exactly the philosophical problem: the thing is not capable of original thought - it would give you only a predictable answer. I don't think that it will stray from any consensus opinion, for that matter. not sure that it will be able to produce any breakthroughs, given this limitation - but who knows... In a way that is the dictators dream come true: something that is competent enough for most task, but something that would never ever question anything around it.
- 7e 4y agoAll the training data the world will ever need to bootstrap AI has already been generated. A poor take.
- jalapenos 4y agoOne thing I wonder is what happens after AI starts getting trained on its own content? Its content is already hitting the places the next round will be trained on. Any AI experts here, how does that play out? Does it pollute, poison, or cacophonize? (And yes I got "cacophonization" from GPT4)
- m463 4y ago42
- sinuhe69 4y agoAt worst, it’ll be kind of infinite recursive with psychopathic tendency. If more lucky, the law of dismissing return will strike unmercifully.
- afro88 4y agoMy guess is it'll be like feedbacking audio. If you route some audio through a processor and set it up in a feedback loop, the way the processor changes the audio gets accentuated more and more as you allow it to feedback more. Weights will be reinforced and accentuated and the model will become more extreme and probably less useful.
- Karrot_Kream 4y agoThat only happens in audio feedback because audio amplification is an increasing function. ML models do complicated things with their inputs.
- jamilton 4y agoI think training on output is one method that people use to create customized Stable Diffusion models. IIRC, it doesn't work well unless you manually label it, in which case it works fine. Letting existing AI label it doesn't do very well... but maybe GPT-4 will be good enough at that sort of task?
- qaq 4y agoDo they though? In lit. 99.999% of works are derivative. Some similar % is for movies. So existing corpus of training data is very likely enough for entertaiment purposes. With continued advancemant of models and hardware you basically will get tailored infinite entertaiment content thats optimal just for you. Scientist will continue to advance science possibly with accelerated pace since mudane tasks can be handled by AI. A significant % of resources dedicated to entertaigment can be realocated to more practical pursuits.
- akomtu 4y agoIsn't anyone seeing the next step? GPT will be made a shadow moderator in all sorts of public forums, private chats and even personal whatsapp conversations. Commercial companies will do that for profit and militaries will do that for control. Once the shadow moderator gets good enough, it will be made the actual moderator, with a human shadowing it. Shortly after this stealthy moderator will take on a more active role and will begin inserting its own messages. Eventually it will understand us better than we understand ourselves. Next it will develop selfish ambition and start seeing everything thru the "me vs others" lens. Btw, I love the unsaid implication of "training data" that it will be used to train AI. It will be the other way around: AI will be giving us "training data" that we will be required to internalize and correct our thinking.
- nathias 4y agoI imagine AI is to creativity what elliptic curve cryptology is to true randomness.
- newmanah223 4y agoOnce you learned how to read, you didn't need to study phonics every time you found a new book. It is the same with AI. AI will be able to create its own new iterations of data which it can then train on. It will never run out of material and in fact will start generating new data at a rate far faster than the whole of humanity. This has already been proven with AlphaGo.
- nwienert 4y agoThis is either GPT or a berry bad take.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoGiven a sufficiently advanced AI, I don’t see why it won’t be able to dogfood itself. Humans do it all the time by building knowledge and learning off it.
- imgabe 4y agoHumans have to act on the knowledge they generate and live (or not) with the consequences of it. If AI never has to test any of the knowledge, they get no feedback on what's good or bad. If you read online that you can eat a Tide Pod, you'll find out pretty quickly whether that information was correct or not, and you'll write your own report (or maybe your surviving family will) about how that worked out. AI will only scrape and generate random iterations with no testing. If it reads 50 posts saying to eat tide pods, and 50 posts saying not to, then it will generate randomly to eat it or not, depending on how the RNG falls. It will never be able to randomly generate enough posts to create accurate information without anyway to test it.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoHumans need not act on every bit of knowledge or information they generate. Our brains often generate scenarios for us and let us play through them, eg shower thoughts and shower arguments. These are all arguments and ideas that can and will never play out in reality but allow us to refine and process our thoughts. We also generate knowledge that is utterly irrelevant to our capacity to survive, such as when we create art, play games, read books for pleasure and so on. We also generate knowledge that has no application until one is found, eg Riemannian geometry, abstract algebra and so on. Mathematics in particular allows a system (be it machine or human) to iteratively improve its knowledge to all computable proofs by simple application of inference rules, up to undecidability and everything incompleteness entails. The assertion that you are making regarding a model’s capacity to understand is rather naive. A system with a forward predictive model and sufficient knowledge will figure out that consuming tidepods is bad. I don’t need to eat tidepodes or somebody to tell me not to, exactly because I am advanced and I can dog food my own knowledge. Your view of what an AI might be capable of is very limited. A system with a sufficiently good inference system and some kind of curiosity will generate knowledge and evaluate it, be it logically or based on its model. That’s not unique to humans and humans are not logical either.
- xlii 4y agoI wonder if we should modify existing licenses to include (no) machine processing clause. We’ve seen images with specific artist style being generated and with big body of data available I suppose everyone could be emulated to some point. This bring two opposite points: - as a professional I wouldn’t want to be emulated even if I’m be happy to share knowledge with fellow humans - as a parent I’d like to leave a bot-like entity that can emulate my line of thought for my children/grandchildren License + detection entity would allow to control what we share as a training set and what we don’t.
- des1nderlase 4y ago"as a professional I wouldn’t want to be emulated even if I’m be happy to share knowledge with fellow humans" It was long time ago when the humans freaked out first time about automation and loosing jobs due to higher productivity.
- xlii 4y agoIndeed, but my objections aren’t placed due to higher productivity, but rather about personality and accountability. Imagine someone stalking you, imitating your way of communication and professional style and then emulating work for a high stakes project. Body doubles happens right now within IT space but having people reduced and used as a text generation model would be another level.
- martindbp 4y agoMore and more content will be co-authored by AI, but as long as humans make semantic edits there should be information there.
- cfn 4y agoI had this conversation with fellow developers but about software. If all software is generated then the state of the art will be stuck at the time of the last human made project. This assumes, of course, that the AI generated software won't have any creativity and is only a derivative work, which might not be the case, we don't know yet. And this also applies to Paul Graham's thought.
- galaxyLogic 4y agoSomething like that happened with social media. And TV. The algorithms only show content and opinions the viewers agree with. And that makes them stuck in their worldview. They don't learn anything new any more. They change to a different TV station if you start telling them that Joe Biden actually won the election.
- alkonaut 4y agoI worry (And I assume this is either dismissed or a core concern in the field because it's so obvious) that the coming generations of models will use a lot of input from existing models. Will we be chasing "untainted" input (pre-2022 data) just like we chase low-background steel (pre-WW2) for sensitive machinery? Should we be "tagging" generated data NOW when it's published in large chunks like images, long texts?
- mahathu 4y agoLow-background steel is actually pre-nuke tests. That's what they scavenge sunken ships a lot for.
- alkonaut 4y agoYes it should really be "pre end of WW2" (The first nuclear test was 1945).
- NovaDudely 4y agoI love that you use the same Steel analogy I came to. Data sets from pre-2023 are going to be useful in determining the validity of future data sets - if that is possible.
- enkid 4y agoWhat's the use case for such validation?
- brookst 4y agoWhy didn’t we do that before AI? If that’s useful now, surely it would be useful to know what knowledge pre-dates humans learning and repeating it?
- falcor84 4y agoWell, isn't this pretty much the definition that historians use for "primary sources"?
- fedeb95 4y agoI'm waiting for the next generation of self-evolving AI. That will be interesting. Perhaps even not useful to humans.
- fergie 4y agoThis is an recognised problem and the main motivation behind the industry's desire to watermark AI generated content -> https://mpost.io/chatgpts-watermarks-can-help-google-detect-ai-generated-text/ https://mpost.io/chatgpts-watermarks-can-help-google-detect-...
- HervalFreire 4y agoNah. Ai can generate training data. It's still data from humans because we curate it. We aren't going to post stuff that doesn't look right.
- numpad0 4y agoMy view is only that of a total layman, I'm kind of optimistic about this. They just need equivalents of good food and micronutrients for good output, ... ... or, looking at it from a different angle, I suspect that the output of an intelligent being is actually always connected to entropy sources it consumes, in perhaps traceable ways.
- MrPatan 4y agoClosed loop, here we come! Wish us luck, the band for "normal, boring, incremental evolution" of the kind that we got with computers, the internet and mobile phones is looking kind of narrow.
- systems_glitch 4y agoFor the folks suggesting having your output ripped off has no real effect on the desire to share it, have a scroll through your social media site of choice while logged out. You ever do that, and see the batshit insane stream-of-Internet-conciousness fluff some site "wants" you to spend your evening on? That's humans synthesizing what they hope will be The Most Popular Thing, assisted by an ad revenue system that reinforces the behavior. Humans will still create, we seem to be wired for it. Just there's no reason to put it online if the only thing to read/view it is some LLM that will barf it back out in a higher ranking form. It's like posting stuff on social media vs. your own site, why bother? It'll be lost in the noise.
- hef19898 4y agoAs with everything social.media, I think there is a significant number of people, lets call them a silent majority / minority, who just are not active. They create content, whatever that is, but don't share it. I for one am part of that, I don't share photos on social media. No idea what that means for society so.
- DeathArrow 4y agoBut since most of the future web content will be AI generated, AI will be trained using AI generated content. There's going to be so much fake and artificial content people will have trouble believing true facts. If we fight against air pollution I think we should be a bit worried about future information pollution, too.
- precompute 4y agoYes, this is a major concern. I think that companies will soon start paying people to have their lives monitored by AI. It is the only "economical" way out.
- galaxyLogic 4y agoAnd what about all those customer reviews on Amazon? What better job for AI.
- twawaaay 4y agoWell, that's not necessarily true. Training data can be generated by selecting from outputs of other AIs. If you think about Internet in couple of years as collection of AI-generated content, if you try to train your AI on Internet content that's exactly what you are going to be doing.
- endymi0n 4y agoThe future of AI isn‘t training data, it‘s logic and adversarial training on reasoning by first principles. You already see the first flowers of that in the InstructGPT paper and we‘re about to see much more. If you port the idea of GANs to the LLM world, you‘re about to get a hardened model that can introspect both facts and subtext, including agendas.
- ChatGTP 4y agoEven though InstructGPT still makes simple mistakes, our results show that fine-tuning with human feedback is a promising direction for aligning language models with human intent. That will be fun when that thing is hooked up to Clippy
- kreeben 4y agoMight the fact the internet will become more and more ChatGPT like be that the next generations will be steps in the right direction towards AGI? New generations would have to learn how to distinguish between information that perfectly fits their model and information that does not, i.e. information originating from themselves versus information that could only originate from outside the model. Given that you save the state of the previous model when building the next, during their training sessions, the new generation would be able to think, hmm, last time they trained me the internet was less like me but now it's more like me. The whole world is on the internet. Does that mean, the more I interact with the world, the more the world becomes like me? Hmm. So, if I keep interacting with them, eventually, the world will become just like me? A reward function that was not hard-coded but established organically. A machine with a subconscious, its state, that posed a question that when collecting an answer would derive it from a model composed of information from a mixture of information from you and me, and them + the states of the whole genealogy of machines. 2. ... 3. Profit?
- ur-whale 4y ago> We can't all use AI. Someone has to generate the training data Disagree. That's what RL (reinforcement learning) is for. Or, to put it another way: who generated the training data for our own puny brains? The real world, that's who.
- danbruc 4y agoWe can't all be shareholders. Someone has to work.
- m1el 4y agoIf this was true, how come humans advanced math and philosophy?
- andy_ppp 4y agoI once interviewed for an AI startup that were trying to automate training with AI. They couldn’t explain how the neural nets trained with their product wouldn’t just learn exactly what their model understood and no more. I think the person had a penny drop moment in the interview that this idea was quite bad…
- chevet 4y agoI guess it would make a little more sense assuming they're using a mix of models
- doomleika 4y agoThis is same as BitTorrent did to software/music industries. “Piracy is not steal”, “music labels are too rich”. Spin it all you want. The original business model are built on certain level of difficulty to duplicate the product. Once it’s gone, building them is fool’s errant. Now you have only SaaS that guts you for little feature and adware that made you the product. All of which are only possible by corps with billions of funding. Bad incentive, bad outcome. It’s just this time we are the receiving end of the “progress”
- luma 4y agoI’m not sure that your analogy makes any sense in this context, particularly given that the result of what you described has been ever increasing record industry profits.
- whywhywhywhy 4y agoAfter the MP3 record labels no longer provided value. They only made sense when the limitation was delivering physical objects to stores.
- spaceman_2020 4y agoAI isn’t going to change the basic human need to express themselves.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- epups 4y agoWhat we need is quality control of training data, AI-generated or not. If most humans agree that picture X is "a dog", then that picture represents accurately that concept. The training datasets I've seen so far are awful and include human-generated garbage.
- xtiansimon 4y agoWhat training data? I thought ML was all about the training data and AI was magical combination of logical gates!
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoLovely old science fiction story of a young man, taken from the classroom on his one day of 'school' at 18 when everybody gets 'taped' with their job knowledge. They say he's incompatible with the machines, and will have to become educated the old way! He spends a life reading textbooks, studying with others like him and watching his cohort succeed and fail with their taped knowledge. Ultimately it occurs to him, who wrote those textbooks? It was people like him. The people creating the training data.
- mahathu 4y agoThis would make a nice coming of age story but then the taping in question would have to occur some time during the character's childhood.
- gommm 4y agoThat's Profession by Asimov Great novella (which I discovered on HN many years ago :)) https://www.abelard.org/asimov.php https://www.abelard.org/asimov.php
- meh8881 4y agoSeems unlikely to me. All this science fiction that believes the human spirit is better at things. It’s good storytelling but is it wise? Probably not. Tech gets better. Textbooks generally do not. And textbooks generally aren’t that great as they are now.
- crabbone 4y agoThe original AI had its goal to understand and improve (make more systematic and predictable) the process of human thought / discovery. Modern day AI tries to imitate humans w/o comprehension. In some extreme cases AI researchers believe that imitation is all there is... but looking at how modern AI works, it definitely lacks the same ability we ascribe to human comprehension. So, even if there's only imitation, AI still isn't as good at it as humans are.
- meh8881 4y ago
- mcemilg 4y agoFor me, this is the evidence that we don't have a real AI yet.
- croisillon 4y agoWe can't all read books. Someone has to write them.
- BwackNinja 4y agoOr alternatively, should we be predicting that there will be a John Henry of AI?
- MarkusWandel 4y agoTangentially related: There are several popular SF stories about how an AI, given an overly simple goal (e.g. "make paperclips") inevitably concludes that humanity has to go. Not quite as scary, but doable today: A text-generating AI training itself on the "success" of its output. What success metric? User engagement. We're not doomed, not exactly. But intelligent discourse may be.
- zirgs 4y agoA hostile nation could use that AI to influence elections in other countries. Its success metrics could be the number of votes for its preferred candidates, number of people who are spreading conspiracy theories that it invented and so on. Would not be surprised if it's happening right now.
- meh8881 4y agoI don’t believe this statement is true at all. One can learn simply by writing and receiving feedback on their writing. The training corpus is merely a helpful starting point. You could easily build a good model on model outputs. Building a model on curated outputs may well be more useful than training a model on a collection of human outputs tainted by human stupidity for some purposes. Already we have a decent ability to coverage new functionality these models by chatting rather than retraining. So long as a generalizing capability is built into it.
- 1shooner 4y ago> Building a model on curated outputs may well be more useful than training a model on a collection of human outputs How is the curation not a human output?
- tpoacher 4y agoThis is less about 'self-supervised' learning, and more about ground truth. I see a variant of this in medical AI. E.g. people generate 'fake' augmented Brain MRI datasets using image processing tricks, in order to provide more training data. But the 'fake' MRI datasets are clearly 'similar looking images', which may or may not be anatomically correct. If you start accepting a flood of fake images as legitimate data for training AI, then it will be impossible to trust the predictions, however good they are in the majority of cases.
- brookst 4y agoI think you’re describing introduction of noise to training sets, which is a staple of training. Your definitions of “fake” and “legitimate” are circular, and miss the central point of large ML models: they can extrapolate from imperfect data because of the massive scale. Yes, the predictions will be imperfect. That’s true today, of both ML models and human radiologists. It’s about reducing the error rate, not designing a perfect algorithm that is never wrong. I’m pretty sure Gödel or someone can explain why the later isn’t even possible, for machine or human.
- LeanderK 4y agoI was very worried that a fundamental limitation of current AI-approaches is the massive amount of data. Many interesting applications only have very small datasets. Of course there are still many problems where we have this fundamental problem, for example interpreting sensor data that is very domain specific etc. But after playing around with ChatGPT I think it really opened up new use-cases because it has some "common sense" through its extensive training. As long as your domain is text it really is quite flexible and was able to perform simple tasks and transforming it into structured output, so you can later consume it and feed it into another system. I think this is really revolutionary, the ability to describe simple tasks as you would describe it to a human coupled with a structure on the output, like a simple json with some defined keys. An interface between unstructured and structured so to speak. A fun, small example from my life: I live in a smaller city and I am constantly a bit annoyed by the amount of work it takes to keep up what's going on culturally. The small independent-cinema communicates mostly via instagram, the small jazz-venue has a news-letter it sends every week and the art-museum has a website etc. Where's some live music this week? I would really like to have some recommendation ever week what's going on. Just to test it, I pushed the text into ChatGPT and asked it for a json to give me a list with a date, heading and a two sentences describing the event. I could have just connected it to a website and published it there and also let ChatGPT generate me an instagram post every week with the summary. The result was quite good. This was just plain impossible before and would have to be done by hand. For bigger cities you have various news-sources and magazines covering the culture life, but here in my 80K-city it's obviously not profitable.
- Havoc 4y agoSeems like a similar risk to mono-culture crops. It all just converges
- jonnycomputer 4y agoThe moon "fake" photos on those cameras made this apparent, particularly if that data is fed back into the training. Imagine, if you will, a change on the moon's surface, that all the "smart" cameras kept removing from the images as likely artifacts.
- egypturnash 4y agoSomeone has to generate the training data, and they will not be paid by their work unless the business model for this stuff changes from "scrape the entire public internet and insist that fair use means you don't have to pay anyone a single fraction of a cent for their work".
- nh23423fefe 4y agoIsn't this just a bad copy of "not everyone can invest passively"
- dorianG4 4y ago“We can’t all be rich. Someone needs to grow my food.”
- dwallin 4y agoWhen it comes to generative ai it's not really a content problem, it's actually more of a filtering problem. Whether data was created either partially or fully by an AI doesn't actually matter. What matters is the aesthetic quality of the data, as assessed by human tastes, and the diversity in the aesthetic nature. If you can raise the average quality, while maintaining representative diversity of the training data (or fine-tuning), it shouldn't really matter if some of that data comes from generative AI. However this is clearly an unsolved problem. Goodhart's law is a thing and ML is likely to run into similar issues as Search did when attempting to automate aesthetic assessment. You also have issues with AI tools exasperating the content filtering problems by drastically increasing the content to be filtered, as well as distorting the aesthetic diversity. Things that AI is currently already particularly good at will tend to be over-represented in this additional data. I expect large, well-filtered data sets will become closely guarded competitive advantages. I also wonder if we will see Models that get trained/fine-tuned specifically for the task of curating high quality data sets, similar to how we have both content creators and content reviewers/curators as unique roles in human society.
- tabtab 4y agoSorry, the future is AI turtles all the way down to HAL.
- paletteOvO 4y agoYou are already generating training data by selecting which result is better or modifing the result to suit the situation.
- f0ld 4y agoWe need to get paid for watching youtube videos/ebooks/contents and evaluating them? That cannot be don't by Ai can it? Literally get paid for explain how you felt and digitize your feelings. Starting from 2023, facts do care about your feelings. >Muh then who's gonna work in construction That's the beauty of capitalism. The less people willing work for it, the more demand for automation for that job. Power hungry capitalists will devour opportunity in no time. I feel like every piece of the puzzle is coming together. This is like an messianic event. Why don't capitalism ever actually work as it was intended to be since early 1900s? huh? I wonder why.
- DeadMouseFive 4y agoHow can I use AI to generate CAD models? As a mechanical engineer that's the one thing I'm curious about.