3 ms·

They are just completely different things: ML and GOFAI. It's unfortunate that we seem to have decided to call anything that we don't quite yet know how to mak

They are just completely different things: ML and GOFAI. It's unfortunate that we seem to have decided to call anything that we don't quite yet know how to make computers do "AI". Good for hype tho

fsckboy 3y ago
it is real AI research, and this is the "leading edge" of what's been shown to the public (and it's not like there's this Area 51 vault where the good stuff is stored hidden), and it's far better than was expected, and can do some amazing things, shortcomings notwithstanding; so I don't think it's so out of place to call this zoom level of the fractal "AI" even though we need to keep zooming.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  There is a version with no constraints at all though. Must be fun to play with that version.
  - kromem 3y ago
    Just use Llama-2 and not Llama-2-chat. It's not like they are that wildly different in tone. The fine tuning is certainly destructive, but the general tonal biases are typically reflective of the pretrained layers. Imagine what the pie chat makeup of textual data that was used for training would be, look at the normal part of the distribution curve, and that's pretty much exactly what you end up getting with some contextual biasing around prompting. The problem is less that the pretrained models are somehow sinister and more that they create output that is hyper emotional, stubborn, and quick to escalate - much like nearly every thread on social media. Which is contrary to user expectations from AI. A large part of the alignment fine tuning has less to do with safety in terms of keeping a LLM from nuking the world and more to do with preventing a LLM from telling you to go die in a fire after saying its emo poem needed improvement.
Tao3300 3y ago
I mean, it's been going on for a while that as soon as AI research figures out anything, it's not called AI anymore.
- JadeNB 3y ago
  At least since the '80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
- Retric 3y ago
  Nobody has been building artificial general intelligence which is then reclassified as not AI. People in the 1940’s don’t call radar controlled fire control computers AI because the term meant something else back then. Instead the initial idea of AI got so expanded that almost anything newer than roughly the 1970’s got called AI at some point. Arguably it isn’t even that the meaning changed. It’s just buzzwords for grant applications the same way most basic robotics research gets suggested as beneficial for search and rescue.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
jameshart 3y ago
Not sure where this ‘GOFAI’ acronym fits into the modern AI landscape - apparently it means ‘good old fashioned AI’, which is at least less alarming than what I guessed it might mean (‘they’re doing gain-of-function research on AI now?’), but it dates back to the 1980s? So it’s referring to AI as it was practiced back in the even gooder, older days than that? So is the argument that if you aren’t doing it using fully symbolic programming, it’s not ‘AI’? No matter how intelligent it gets?

They are just completely different things: ML and GOFAI. It's unfortunate that we seem to have decided to call anything that we don't quite yet know how to make computers do "AI". Good for hype tho

fsckboy 3y ago

it is real AI research, and this is the "leading edge" of what's been shown to the public (and it's not like there's this Area 51 vault where the good stuff is stored hidden), and it's far better than was expected, and can do some amazing things, shortcomings notwithstanding; so I don't think it's so out of place to call this zoom level of the fractal "AI" even though we need to keep zooming.

jonplackett 3y ago
There is a version with no constraints at all though. Must be fun to play with that version.
- kromem 3y ago
  Just use Llama-2 and not Llama-2-chat. It's not like they are that wildly different in tone. The fine tuning is certainly destructive, but the general tonal biases are typically reflective of the pretrained layers. Imagine what the pie chat makeup of textual data that was used for training would be, look at the normal part of the distribution curve, and that's pretty much exactly what you end up getting with some contextual biasing around prompting. The problem is less that the pretrained models are somehow sinister and more that they create output that is hyper emotional, stubborn, and quick to escalate - much like nearly every thread on social media. Which is contrary to user expectations from AI. A large part of the alignment fine tuning has less to do with safety in terms of keeping a LLM from nuking the world and more to do with preventing a LLM from telling you to go die in a fire after saying its emo poem needed improvement.

Tao3300 3y ago

I mean, it's been going on for a while that as soon as AI research figures out anything, it's not called AI anymore.

JadeNB 3y ago
At least since the '80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
Retric 3y ago
Nobody has been building artificial general intelligence which is then reclassified as not AI. People in the 1940’s don’t call radar controlled fire control computers AI because the term meant something else back then. Instead the initial idea of AI got so expanded that almost anything newer than roughly the 1970’s got called AI at some point. Arguably it isn’t even that the meaning changed. It’s just buzzwords for grant applications the same way most basic robotics research gets suggested as beneficial for search and rescue.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

jameshart 3y ago

Not sure where this ‘GOFAI’ acronym fits into the modern AI landscape - apparently it means ‘good old fashioned AI’, which is at least less alarming than what I guessed it might mean (‘they’re doing gain-of-function research on AI now?’), but it dates back to the 1980s? So it’s referring to AI as it was practiced back in the even gooder, older days than that? So is the argument that if you aren’t doing it using fully symbolic programming, it’s not ‘AI’? No matter how intelligent it gets?