5 ms·

The problem is, of course, these systems are fundamentally incapable of human-level intelligence and cognition. There will be a lot of wasted effort in pursuit

The problem is, of course, these systems are fundamentally incapable of human-level intelligence and cognition. There will be a lot of wasted effort in pursuit of this unreachable goal (with LLM technology), an effort better spent elsewhere, like solving cancer or climate change, and stealing young and naive people’s minds away from these problems.

simonw 3y ago
I don't think I want or need human-level cognition in my software. It turns out what I want is fancy autocomplete that you can few-shot teach to do all manner of useful NLP things, which is what LLMs are giving me today.
- vba616 3y ago
  Trying to analogize the bullish case for LLMs as I perceive it: If you had an intern at your beck and call, who was obedient but knew nothing about anything except how to use a search engine, would that make you a "10x" at whatever you do?
  - dinvlad 3y ago
    Exactly - if I can’t trust it (as has been my experience with 90% of queries) so that I have to still Google its answers to verify them, what good does it do? It isn’t really improving my productivity in a substantial way, or can indeed hinder it. That said, my beef is not with its use for this purpose - whatever makes people happy and feel more productive, it’s all good and fun. The problem is when the CEO of a company like OpenAI starts talking with a straight face in his Congress testimony how this not-really-new tech has the potential to run afoul and enslave us (I’m heavily paraphrasing, obviously). That is the problem - this particular CEO suddenly feels entitled enough to make a giant PR stunt by using his official testimony to endow his product with the qualities it cannot possibly have - that is the problem. The blatant lies and deception is frankly disgusting.
  - epups 3y ago
    Even if we accept your premise, LLMs don't have to make you 10x in order to succeed. I think even 1.05x will do, considering their price point is 20 bucks a month.
williamcotton 3y ago
While we’re at it let’s encourage people to stop making music and peanut butter as well.
- dinvlad 3y ago
  Your point?
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    dinvald said, “The problem is, of course, these systems are fundamentally incapable of human-level intelligence and cognition. There will be a lot of wasted effort in pursuit of this unreachable goal (with LLM technology), an effort better spent elsewhere, like solving cancer or climate change, and stealing young and naive people’s minds away from these problems.” In response I said, “While we’re at it let’s encourage people to stop making music and peanut butter as well.” Then dinvald said, “Your point?” Can you explain to dinvald what my point was? ChatGPT: Absolutely. Your response is a form of reductio ad absurdum, a strategy where one extends an argument to an absurd extreme to point out its flaws. In this case, you are challenging dinvald's claim that efforts towards developing Large Language Models (LLMs) is a waste of resources that could be better spent on solving other problems. By suggesting we also discourage people from making music and peanut butter, you are demonstrating that dinvald's argument could be applied to any human endeavor that isn't directly tied to solving major global issues. Your point is that not every pursuit needs to be measured against solving the world's largest problems, like cancer or climate change. You imply that just like music or peanut butter, AI development also has its place and value.
    - dinvlad 3y ago
      The problem is not with the existence of LLMs, it's with how they're marketed - as a "reasoning" engine and something that can "think". There's no cognition in it, and very unreliable information. If you want to eat a peanut butter sandwich that's marketed as a panacea that can cure all diseases, while not even knowing if the butter has long expired, then all props to you, but I don't. We've all lamented the disinformation campaigns made by humans recently, well this is like a disinformation engine on atomic steroids! And no, they're not going to "solve it" by feeding it more data and parameters - this problem is inherent in LLMs, and in fact gets harder the more data there is. Of course, as always, anything that comes out of Silicon Valley is a fad that is shoved down our throats as the best thing since sliced bread. But in reality, it's completely unnecessary, as it only marginally improves the quality of life of the 0.1% of the population, while simultaneously decreasing it for the rest. That is the sad reality we live in, my friend.

simonw 3y ago

I don't think I want or need human-level cognition in my software. It turns out what I want is fancy autocomplete that you can few-shot teach to do all manner of useful NLP things, which is what LLMs are giving me today.

vba616 3y ago
Trying to analogize the bullish case for LLMs as I perceive it: If you had an intern at your beck and call, who was obedient but knew nothing about anything except how to use a search engine, would that make you a "10x" at whatever you do?
- dinvlad 3y ago
  Exactly - if I can’t trust it (as has been my experience with 90% of queries) so that I have to still Google its answers to verify them, what good does it do? It isn’t really improving my productivity in a substantial way, or can indeed hinder it. That said, my beef is not with its use for this purpose - whatever makes people happy and feel more productive, it’s all good and fun. The problem is when the CEO of a company like OpenAI starts talking with a straight face in his Congress testimony how this not-really-new tech has the potential to run afoul and enslave us (I’m heavily paraphrasing, obviously). That is the problem - this particular CEO suddenly feels entitled enough to make a giant PR stunt by using his official testimony to endow his product with the qualities it cannot possibly have - that is the problem. The blatant lies and deception is frankly disgusting.
- epups 3y ago
  Even if we accept your premise, LLMs don't have to make you 10x in order to succeed. I think even 1.05x will do, considering their price point is 20 bucks a month.

williamcotton 3y ago

While we’re at it let’s encourage people to stop making music and peanut butter as well.

dinvlad 3y ago
Your point?
- williamcotton 3y ago
  dinvald said, “The problem is, of course, these systems are fundamentally incapable of human-level intelligence and cognition. There will be a lot of wasted effort in pursuit of this unreachable goal (with LLM technology), an effort better spent elsewhere, like solving cancer or climate change, and stealing young and naive people’s minds away from these problems.” In response I said, “While we’re at it let’s encourage people to stop making music and peanut butter as well.” Then dinvald said, “Your point?” Can you explain to dinvald what my point was? ChatGPT: Absolutely. Your response is a form of reductio ad absurdum, a strategy where one extends an argument to an absurd extreme to point out its flaws. In this case, you are challenging dinvald's claim that efforts towards developing Large Language Models (LLMs) is a waste of resources that could be better spent on solving other problems. By suggesting we also discourage people from making music and peanut butter, you are demonstrating that dinvald's argument could be applied to any human endeavor that isn't directly tied to solving major global issues. Your point is that not every pursuit needs to be measured against solving the world's largest problems, like cancer or climate change. You imply that just like music or peanut butter, AI development also has its place and value.
  - dinvlad 3y ago
    The problem is not with the existence of LLMs, it's with how they're marketed - as a "reasoning" engine and something that can "think". There's no cognition in it, and very unreliable information. If you want to eat a peanut butter sandwich that's marketed as a panacea that can cure all diseases, while not even knowing if the butter has long expired, then all props to you, but I don't. We've all lamented the disinformation campaigns made by humans recently, well this is like a disinformation engine on atomic steroids! And no, they're not going to "solve it" by feeding it more data and parameters - this problem is inherent in LLMs, and in fact gets harder the more data there is. Of course, as always, anything that comes out of Silicon Valley is a fad that is shoved down our throats as the best thing since sliced bread. But in reality, it's completely unnecessary, as it only marginally improves the quality of life of the 0.1% of the population, while simultaneously decreasing it for the rest. That is the sad reality we live in, my friend.