9 ms·
This is obviously very cool, but at this point — who knows what I’ll say in a year — my concern with these LLMs is that they’re in the uncanny valley. Here’s o
by jen729w 4y ago
This is obviously very cool, but at this point — who knows what I’ll say in a year — my concern with these LLMs is that they’re in the uncanny valley.
Here’s one passing a very difficult test. Amazing! Now, rely on it to build a nuclear doohickey for a power station or a multi-billion dollar device for CERN or anything really and, well, no.
So humans still have to check the output, and now we’re in that situation where humans driving a Tesla on autopilot who are supposed to be 100% aware of the road aren’t, because they get lazy and doze off, and now the car crashes and whoops.
No negativity towards AI here. It’s amazing and it’ll change the future. But we need to be careful on the way.
- mupuff1234 4y agoAlso today humans need to check the output, code reviews etc. Maybe in the near future humans can just focus on the reviewing and testing part.
- CalRobert 4y agoSure, but we'll get lazy.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoHumans are going to want to do the worst parts of the job?
- cyberlurker 4y agoHumans used to go in coal mines.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoThey still do. But that job hasn't gotten worse, it's always been the same level of suck.
- skinnydennys 4y agoIt's gotten quite a bit safer and healthier, but it is still a quite gnarly job.
- tjr 4y agoWould we even still be able to? If we stop learning how to code (because AI does that for us) we might not be very good reviewers.
- tonymillion 4y agoLet me make an AI to check the first AIs work, then we can all have cake… on the beach… in Tahiti
- dustingetz 4y agothat’s just QA and human work requires those same feedback loops, feedback is the cornerstone of all value delivery pipelines really
- c54 4y agoI agree with the point you're making here, but it’s also funny that the description of someone passing a test but not being able to do much without a lot of human supervision is… exactly the description of a human college graduate.
- mattmanser 4y agoCan anyone answer the chance that example tests of these questions were in its training set? And it's just regurgitating the answers someone else wrote? As I imagine it's a very high chance given how much uni lecturers recycle exam questions. When I was at uni you could just get the last 5 years worth of questions from the library for almost any subject and guess what the questions were probably going to be. Often they just changed a few numbers. Teaching undergrads is like a sausage factory, the actual intellectual value for undergrads is in the seminars, the practical value in the labs. The rest is showing you can regurgitate what you've been told. Which ChatGPT excels at.
- skepticATX 4y agoI don’t know anything about quantum computing. I successfully answered a few true/false questions by pasting them into Google. The exact questions aren’t in the top results, but the answers are.
- sudosysgen 4y agoYes, the vast majority of these questions are standard known problems it definitely already saw with a slightly different formulation.
- moonchrome 4y agoYou can try phrasing the question in a way that it wouldn't be phrased but would still demonstrate understanding of concept. I remember Yann LeCun gave an interview and he came up with some random question like "If I'm holding a peace of paper with both of my hands above the desk and I release one what would happen". His point was that since the LLM doesn't have a world model it wouldn't be able to answer these trivial intuitive questions unless it saw something similar in the training set. And then the interviewer tried it and it failed. That was 3.5. I've tried many variation of that class of problem with 4 and it seems to generalize basic physics concepts quite well. So maybe 4 learned basic physics ? Why couldn't it learn QM theory as well ?
- umvi 4y ago> So humans still have to check the output, and now we’re in that situation where humans driving a Tesla on autopilot who are supposed to be 100% aware of the road aren’t, because they get lazy and doze off, and now the car crashes and whoops. The only question is whether, on average, AI-augmented code suggestions reduce overall bug rates. Human devs are already dozing off with crashes and whoopsies at high rates so it doesn't matter too much if AI output has a bug or whoopsie so long as they occur at rates lower than pure human generated code.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoI don't think it's as simple as a mere bug rate comparison. When a human makes a whoopsie, we blame that human. Maybe it's a bit uncomfortable, but it it works to prevent them from cooperating with attempts to inject whoopsies into their code. If we create a culture of tolerating fatal AI hallucinations as long as they happen at a rate that's below the human caused fatality baseline, we create an opportunity for bad actors to use the "nobody is to blame" window as a plausible deniability weapon (so long as they don't use it too often).
- koboll 4y ago>No negativity towards AI here. It’s amazing and it’ll change the future. But we need to be careful on the way. Yeah, I suspect a lot of fields will have a similar trajectory to how AI has impacted radiology. It might catch the tumor in 99.9999% of cases, better than any human doctor. But missing a malignant tumor 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, because it spikes the hospital's malpractice costs. So every single scan still has to be reviewed manually by a doctor first, then by the AI as a fallback. In theory there's some insurance scheme that could overcome this, but in practice when you have software reviewing millions of scans a day you're opening yourself up to class action lawsuits in a way no competent human doctor would.
- nostoc 4y agoI suspect AI went that way in radiology not because of the chances of False Negatives, but because radiologist are entrenched in the system and will not yield an insanely lucrative stream of revenue.
- koboll 4y agoHospitals would love to fire all radiologists and replace them with software. They've already done it with outsourcing; a large chunk of what used to be done entirely in-house has been contracted out to remote overseas doctors.
- f5e4 4y agoWhat is outsourced to overseas doctors today? I'm assuming you're talking about the US. From what I understand it isn't even possible generally to see a doctor remotely in a cheaper state, because medical licensing is per-state.
- alephnerd 4y agoMedical Scans are reviewed abroad. This practice started in Dentistry in the 90s/early 2000s but expanded to Radiological scans as well. At this point most CT, MRI, and XRay scans in the US have a first pass analysis done by doctors in India+Pakistan. Medical billing has also been offshored to India+Pakistan btw In general, a lot of back office Dental+Medical functions were outsourced in the 2000s+2010s. Eg. Paper about this from 2006 - https://ipc.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/06-005.pdf https://ipc.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/06-005.pdf
- jiggywiggy 4y agoI also don't think it's going to a be lineair growth. 4 is really good, but for writing 3.5 gave better results in some cases. And if you really dive deep you see 4 really hasn't any deep understanding and makes obvious mistakes. I think they've also explicitly trained it for tests.
- reso 4y agoI think watching the development of driverless cars in the last 15 years has taught a lot of people to be skeptical of 95% solutions. Sometimes you really need that 100% or the solution is practically useless.
- Loeffelmann 4y agoI mean this is clearly not the case with LLM. They create value today even though they are not AGI yet.
- reso 4y agoLLMs create value but it's not yet clear how much.
- sharemywin 4y agoI guess the million dollar question is what are the problems where a 95% solution works.
- red-iron-pine 4y agoProbably a lot of them, honestly. The 95% only problem is an issue for cars cuz that last 5% means you die horribly in a head-on collision, or maybe only get a mild concussion but are stuck in a ditch. But if I can get 95% of my router configs done, 95% of my documentation written, and 95% of a website whipped up I can hand that off to a Sr Engineer/Admin and have them take care of the last bits. As long as the hours, phone number, and location are good a website just needs to be "directionally accurate" and otherwise fairly basic.
- ben_w 4y agoMaking websites for a small business such as restaurants and hairdressers, where neither the owners nor the clients have either heard of nor care about "reactive design", and don't want any database more complex than an excel spreadsheet even if you do try to explain why that's a horrifyingly bad use of the wrong tool.
- 4y ago
- sholladay 4y agoA lot of humans fake it until they make it. A lot of humans are lazy. A lot of humans are given responsibility of things that they are unqualified for. A lot of humans make mistakes. The military, for all its funding and all its training and all its planning, has lost multiple nuclear weapons, on American soil. We are imperfect machines who aspire to build more perfect versions of ourselves, through children and now through AI. By many measures, we’ve succeeded. The progress will almost certainly continue. The question is, when will it be good enough for you to embrace it despite its imperfections?
- ChatGTP 4y agoThis is my philosophical take on it… We’d be better off admitting that we rely on nature for almost everything we need, no matter how great an iPhone or ChatGPT is. Some “peasant” still grows your food and the “dumb plants” still produce your air, the more complicated we make things, even with AI augmentation, the more problems we will continue to cause ourselves. Look at what wave done to soil, the oceans, we’re likely on the wrong track. Maybe it’s even unrecoverable. I think we can have a much more advanced society , but we need to slow down a lot and do things more in harmony with the natural world and out our egos aside. We’d probably have a much better quality of life for doing so.
- CatWChainsaw 4y agoA lot of people here will say "never", and they'll drag the rest of us to hell on the way to creating their "heaven".
- jahsome 4y agoHow is this any different from using other technology, e.g. a calculator or a power tool? Or a manager and the output of their ICs? Obviously the scope of what's possible is different but _any_ craftsman using _any_ tool will only be as good as what they verify themselves.
- lucisferre 4y agoA calculator or even most power tools have very predictable outputs for a given input. GPT does not.
- mywittyname 4y agoI think this is the point. These tools aren't replacements for knowledge and experience (which is the narrative that is constantly pushed), they bionic enhancements.
- svachalek 4y agoLook at the people who have been killed by Teslas because they were playing video games or hanky panky in the back seat. People don't do that with a gas pedal or even cruise control because it will go wrong very quickly and we know it. With subhuman but roughly functional self-driving, we instinctively see that our attention is wasted 99% of the time. It's hard to make people pay attention 100% of the time because it's needed 1% of the time.
- jahsome 4y agoPeople absolutely do that with cruise control, and gas pedal... Look at the people texting or drinking and driving non-self-driving vehicles. Adding AI to an inherently risky activity doesn't eliminate the risk. If you're saying stakes are too low when technology is involved (in this case ai) then where do you draw the line? It reminds me of anti seatbelt rhetoric or the same stuff skateboarders say about helmets.
- dcow 4y agoI don't think the data supports the fear that AI assisted driving is more or newly dangerous when compared to fully human drivers. Teslas are safer than any other car on the road. Yes they’re newer, but by mile they’re safer. So the fear that “we should be careful” is understandable but ultimately unfounded. We are being careful.
- adriand 4y agoIt’s abundantly clear that we are going to expect near-perfect reliability from autonomous vehicles. This isn’t necessarily illogical; they operate in a different context than humans do. We expect humans to make mistakes and we have various ways of dealing with the consequences (eg lawsuits targeted at the responsible individual). The argument from statistics doesn’t appear likely to win the kind of societal approval we need for autonomous vehicles to be accepted.
- dcow 4y agoYour point about liability is valid, but it’s far from “abundantly clear” that society needs machines to be near perfect as opposed to just significantly better than humans. Solve the liability problem and I would 100% take a machine that performs 30% better than a human or helps a human perform 30% better every time because it means fewer humans die on the road.
- spiderice 4y ago> Your point about liability is valid How is it valid? It's currently a solved problem. The driver of the car is still held liable because they are still, ultimately, driving the car. Tesla's with autopilot seem to make drivers safer, and acting like we don't know who is liable in the event of a crash is just a red herring.
- dcow 4y agoI meant for fully autonomous systems, but yeah I agree with you.
- bsder 4y agoIt's very easy to stop these AI cold. Make "I don't know" or "Insufficient information" a correct answer--those are not in the training set. These AI have "Male Answer Syndrome" to the nth degree. They will shamelessly give you an answer even if they have to completely make one up.
- ftxbro 4y ago> Male Answer Syndrome is that like mansplaining? is botsplaining the new mansplaining?
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago> humans still have to check the output how often is the “have to check output” more work than just doing the task at hand without the LLM in the first place?
- whazor 4y agoA big factor is that the error rate is compounding. Tiny mistakes would become bigger and bigger if you would run GPT in a loop. It needs interaction and calibration from a human to keep it in check. Even we as humans are using all kinds of different feedback mechanisms to validate our thought process. Though this might be a different way of hooking GPT up to reality.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]