3 ms·

Also, the networks are more difficult to work with, because of the equivariances involved. It's just a much harder domain overall for a few (unlucky? :'( ) reas

Also, the networks are more difficult to work with, because of the equivariances involved. It's just a much harder domain overall for a few (unlucky? :'( ) reasons....

galangalalgol 3y ago
Does anyone trust AI to generate work product in the real world? My early experience with gpt was that it could generate the same boilerplate a good ide could, or it could generate whole segments of primitive code that also showed up in a simple internet search, or it could generate something that was novel and looked good but was subtley wrong. If I was in law I might trust it as a judge to find problems with things lawyers handed me in case I missed something, but I can't imagine trusting it to write a legal document, or correctly identify precedent for the relevant jurisdiction. I would trust it to write a pop song, or a cover letter with a lot of proof reading. Is there a better quality of product out there somewhere? I keep hearing companies cite AI as a way to cut down on employment, but from my experience that seems like wishful thinking.
- than3 3y ago
  The problem is its just a convincing lying machine. These models can never be trusted for accuracy, and part of what they've learned is in manipulating the output towards human bias. If you ask it things that may destroy lives, people, cities, etc. It will downplay all the risks and give you suggestions towards doing it; aside from the hard lines of alignment that have been put in which are easy enough to get around for some. In many respects its the equivalent of that cartoon with a very convincing devil on the shoulder and nothing else. If you aren't mature enough to recognize the bias and manipulation, then your potentially a patsy/victim. That includes not just what it provides, but what it does not provide. This usually requires special education and having a base intelligence above the average. So, really only the top 20% of humans is being generous.
- tysam_and 3y ago
  It's nice and frustrating to see a wider audience struggle with this. It's not really a new one, though there are some hucksters out there that have made it their soapbox. This has been sort of a settled conclusion for a number of years among who I'd consider to be mature, reasonable researchers in the community. AI is good at filtering large amounts of data for final human review. There are some information sieves that work well with large generative models. It will likely not fully surpass humans until some set of benchmarks consistently beats human performance by some multiple factor much greater than 100%. In that case, we'll have some ethical questions about what to do about it and what is the most appropriate way to transition if any, but having a human making the final decision for now seems the most appropriate route until we have more information about what things look like in the future. That's my best understanding, and both a mix of my opinion(s) and what I've heard from others. Any much beyond it I think is a very silly argument.
  - tysam_and 3y ago
    Oh, I want to clarify as well, that in talking about equivariances, I'm talking about the molecule generation side of things. So my main comment wasn't originally intending to get into textual language model stuff. Molecular dynamics is an entirely different beast that my best understanding is that it's quite difficult for a number of reasons.

Also, the networks are more difficult to work with, because of the equivariances involved. It's just a much harder domain overall for a few (unlucky? :'( ) reasons....

galangalalgol 3y ago

Does anyone trust AI to generate work product in the real world? My early experience with gpt was that it could generate the same boilerplate a good ide could, or it could generate whole segments of primitive code that also showed up in a simple internet search, or it could generate something that was novel and looked good but was subtley wrong. If I was in law I might trust it as a judge to find problems with things lawyers handed me in case I missed something, but I can't imagine trusting it to write a legal document, or correctly identify precedent for the relevant jurisdiction. I would trust it to write a pop song, or a cover letter with a lot of proof reading. Is there a better quality of product out there somewhere? I keep hearing companies cite AI as a way to cut down on employment, but from my experience that seems like wishful thinking.

than3 3y ago
The problem is its just a convincing lying machine. These models can never be trusted for accuracy, and part of what they've learned is in manipulating the output towards human bias. If you ask it things that may destroy lives, people, cities, etc. It will downplay all the risks and give you suggestions towards doing it; aside from the hard lines of alignment that have been put in which are easy enough to get around for some. In many respects its the equivalent of that cartoon with a very convincing devil on the shoulder and nothing else. If you aren't mature enough to recognize the bias and manipulation, then your potentially a patsy/victim. That includes not just what it provides, but what it does not provide. This usually requires special education and having a base intelligence above the average. So, really only the top 20% of humans is being generous.
tysam_and 3y ago
It's nice and frustrating to see a wider audience struggle with this. It's not really a new one, though there are some hucksters out there that have made it their soapbox. This has been sort of a settled conclusion for a number of years among who I'd consider to be mature, reasonable researchers in the community. AI is good at filtering large amounts of data for final human review. There are some information sieves that work well with large generative models. It will likely not fully surpass humans until some set of benchmarks consistently beats human performance by some multiple factor much greater than 100%. In that case, we'll have some ethical questions about what to do about it and what is the most appropriate way to transition if any, but having a human making the final decision for now seems the most appropriate route until we have more information about what things look like in the future. That's my best understanding, and both a mix of my opinion(s) and what I've heard from others. Any much beyond it I think is a very silly argument.
- tysam_and 3y ago
  Oh, I want to clarify as well, that in talking about equivariances, I'm talking about the molecule generation side of things. So my main comment wasn't originally intending to get into textual language model stuff. Molecular dynamics is an entirely different beast that my best understanding is that it's quite difficult for a number of reasons.