3 ms·

You really think OpenAI has researchers figuring out how to drive emergent capabilities based on what markets well? Edit: Apparently not based on your clarific

You really think OpenAI has researchers figuring out how to drive emergent capabilities based on what markets well? Edit: Apparently not based on your clarification, instead the researchers don't know any better than to march into a local maxima because they're only human and seek to replicate themselves. I assumed too much good faith.

dragonwriter 2y ago
I don’t think the intent matters, the effect of its capacities being centered where they are is that they trigger certain human biases. (Arguably, it is the other way around: they aren’t focused on appealing to those biases, but driven by them, in the that the perception of language modeling as a road to real general reasoning is a manifestation of the same bias which makes language capacity be perceived as magical.)
- BoorishBears 2y ago
  Intent matters when you're being as dismissive as you were. Not to mention your comment doesn't track at all with the most basic findings they've shared: that adding new modalities increases performance across the board. They shared that with GPT-4 vs GPT-4V, and the fact this is a faster model than GPT-4V while rivaling it's performance seems like further confirmation of the fact. - It seems like you're assigning emotional biases of your own to pretty straightforward science.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > Intent matters when you're being as dismissive as you were. The GP comment we're all replying to outlines a non-exhaustive list of very good reasons to be highly dismissive of LLM. (No I'm not calling it AI, it is not fucking AI) It is utterly laughable and infuriating that you're assigning legitimate skepticism about this technology as a an emotional bias. Fucking ridiculous. We're now almost a full year into the full bore open hype cycle of LLM. Where's all the LLM products? Where's the market penetration? Business can't use it because it has a nasty tendency to make shit up when it's talking. Various companies and individuals are being sued because generative art is stealing from artists. Code generators are hitting walls of usability so steep, you're better off just writing the damn code yourself. We keep hearing this "it will do!" "it's coming!" "just think of what it can do soon!" on and on and on, and it just keeps... not doing any of it. It keeps hallucinating untrue facts, it keeps getting basics of it's tasks wrong, for fucks sake AI Dungeon can't even remember if I'm in Hyrule or Night City. Progress seems fewer and farther between, with most advances being just getting the compute cost down, because NO business currently using LLM extensively could be profitable without generous donation of compute from large corporations like Microsoft.
    - imwillofficial 2y ago
      I mean when you’re making a point about how your views should not be taken as emotional bias, it pays to not be overly emotional. The fact that you don’t see utility doesn’t mean it is not helpful to others. A recent example, I used Grok to write me an outline of a paper regarding military and civilian emergency response as part of a refresher class. To test it out we fed it scenario questions and saw how it compared to our classmates responses. All people with decades of emergency management experience. The results were shocking. It was able to successfully navigate a large scale emergency management problem and get it (mostly) right. I could see a not so distant future where we become QA checkers for our AI overlords.
    - BoorishBears 2y ago
      I didn't see any good reasons to be dismissive of LLMs, I saw a weak attempt at implying we're at a local maxima because scientists don't know better than to chase after what seems magical or special to them due to their bias as humans. It's not an especially insightful or sound argument imo, and neither are random complaints about capabilities of systems millions of people use daily despite your own claims. And for the record: > because NO business currently using LLM extensively could be profitable without generous donation of compute from large corporations like Microsoft OpenAI isn't the only provider of LLMs. Plenty of businesses are using providers that provide their services profitably, and I'm not convinced that OpenAI themselves are subsidising these capabilities as strongly as they once did.
    - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
      All that spilled ink don’t change the fact that I use it every day and it makes everything faster and easier and more enjoyable. I’m absolutely chuffed to put my phone on a stand so GPT4o can see the page I’m writing on and chat with me about my notes or the book I’m reading and the occasional doodle. One of the first things I’ll try out is to see if it can give feedback and tips on sketching, since it can generate images with a lot better control of the subject it might even be able to demonstrate various techniques I could employ!
      - fzeroracer 2y ago
hbn 2y ago
That's not what the GP said at all. It was just an explanation for why this demo feels so incredible.
- BoorishBears 2y ago
  GP's follow up is literally >they aren’t focused on appealing to those biases, but driven by them, in the that the perception of language modeling... So yes in effect that is their point, except they find the scientists are actually compelled by what markets well, rather than intentionally going after what markets well... which is frankly even less flattering. Like researchers who enabled this just didn't know better than to be seduced by some underlying human bias into a local maxima.
  - frompom 2y ago
    I think that's still just an explanation of biases that go into development direction. I don't view that as a criticism but an observation. We use LLMs in our products, and I use them daily and I'm not sure how that's that negative. We all have biases in how we determine intelligence, capability, and accuracy. Our biases color our trust and ability to retain information. There's a wealth of research around it. We're all susceptible to these biases. Being a researcher doesn't exclude you from the experience of being human. Our biases influence how we measure things, which in turn influences how things behave. I don't see why you're so upset by that pretty obvious observation.
    - BoorishBears 2y ago
      The full comment is right there, we don't need to seance what the rest of it was or remix it. > Arguably, it is the other way around: they aren’t focused on appealing to those biases, but driven by them, in the that the perception of language modeling as a road to real general reasoning is a manifestation of the same bias which makes language capacity be perceived as magical There's no charitable reading of this that doesn't give the researcher's way too little credit given the results of the direction they've chosen. This has nothing to do with biases and emotion, I'm not sure why some people need it to be: modalities have progressed in order of how easy they are to wrangle data on: text => image => audio => video. We've seen that training on more tokens improves performance, we've seen that training on new modalities improves performance on the prior modalities. It's so needlessly dismissive to act like you have this mystical insight into a grave error these people are making, and they're just seeking to replicate human language out of folly, when you're ignoring table stakes for their underlying works to start with.

dragonwriter 2y ago

I don’t think the intent matters, the effect of its capacities being centered where they are is that they trigger certain human biases. (Arguably, it is the other way around: they aren’t focused on appealing to those biases, but driven by them, in the that the perception of language modeling as a road to real general reasoning is a manifestation of the same bias which makes language capacity be perceived as magical.)

BoorishBears 2y ago
Intent matters when you're being as dismissive as you were. Not to mention your comment doesn't track at all with the most basic findings they've shared: that adding new modalities increases performance across the board. They shared that with GPT-4 vs GPT-4V, and the fact this is a faster model than GPT-4V while rivaling it's performance seems like further confirmation of the fact. - It seems like you're assigning emotional biases of your own to pretty straightforward science.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > Intent matters when you're being as dismissive as you were. The GP comment we're all replying to outlines a non-exhaustive list of very good reasons to be highly dismissive of LLM. (No I'm not calling it AI, it is not fucking AI) It is utterly laughable and infuriating that you're assigning legitimate skepticism about this technology as a an emotional bias. Fucking ridiculous. We're now almost a full year into the full bore open hype cycle of LLM. Where's all the LLM products? Where's the market penetration? Business can't use it because it has a nasty tendency to make shit up when it's talking. Various companies and individuals are being sued because generative art is stealing from artists. Code generators are hitting walls of usability so steep, you're better off just writing the damn code yourself. We keep hearing this "it will do!" "it's coming!" "just think of what it can do soon!" on and on and on, and it just keeps... not doing any of it. It keeps hallucinating untrue facts, it keeps getting basics of it's tasks wrong, for fucks sake AI Dungeon can't even remember if I'm in Hyrule or Night City. Progress seems fewer and farther between, with most advances being just getting the compute cost down, because NO business currently using LLM extensively could be profitable without generous donation of compute from large corporations like Microsoft.
  - imwillofficial 2y ago
    I mean when you’re making a point about how your views should not be taken as emotional bias, it pays to not be overly emotional. The fact that you don’t see utility doesn’t mean it is not helpful to others. A recent example, I used Grok to write me an outline of a paper regarding military and civilian emergency response as part of a refresher class. To test it out we fed it scenario questions and saw how it compared to our classmates responses. All people with decades of emergency management experience. The results were shocking. It was able to successfully navigate a large scale emergency management problem and get it (mostly) right. I could see a not so distant future where we become QA checkers for our AI overlords.
  - BoorishBears 2y ago
    I didn't see any good reasons to be dismissive of LLMs, I saw a weak attempt at implying we're at a local maxima because scientists don't know better than to chase after what seems magical or special to them due to their bias as humans. It's not an especially insightful or sound argument imo, and neither are random complaints about capabilities of systems millions of people use daily despite your own claims. And for the record: > because NO business currently using LLM extensively could be profitable without generous donation of compute from large corporations like Microsoft OpenAI isn't the only provider of LLMs. Plenty of businesses are using providers that provide their services profitably, and I'm not convinced that OpenAI themselves are subsidising these capabilities as strongly as they once did.
  - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
    All that spilled ink don’t change the fact that I use it every day and it makes everything faster and easier and more enjoyable. I’m absolutely chuffed to put my phone on a stand so GPT4o can see the page I’m writing on and chat with me about my notes or the book I’m reading and the occasional doodle. One of the first things I’ll try out is to see if it can give feedback and tips on sketching, since it can generate images with a lot better control of the subject it might even be able to demonstrate various techniques I could employ!
    - fzeroracer 2y ago

hbn 2y ago

That's not what the GP said at all. It was just an explanation for why this demo feels so incredible.

BoorishBears 2y ago
GP's follow up is literally >they aren’t focused on appealing to those biases, but driven by them, in the that the perception of language modeling... So yes in effect that is their point, except they find the scientists are actually compelled by what markets well, rather than intentionally going after what markets well... which is frankly even less flattering. Like researchers who enabled this just didn't know better than to be seduced by some underlying human bias into a local maxima.
- frompom 2y ago
  I think that's still just an explanation of biases that go into development direction. I don't view that as a criticism but an observation. We use LLMs in our products, and I use them daily and I'm not sure how that's that negative. We all have biases in how we determine intelligence, capability, and accuracy. Our biases color our trust and ability to retain information. There's a wealth of research around it. We're all susceptible to these biases. Being a researcher doesn't exclude you from the experience of being human. Our biases influence how we measure things, which in turn influences how things behave. I don't see why you're so upset by that pretty obvious observation.
  - BoorishBears 2y ago
    The full comment is right there, we don't need to seance what the rest of it was or remix it. > Arguably, it is the other way around: they aren’t focused on appealing to those biases, but driven by them, in the that the perception of language modeling as a road to real general reasoning is a manifestation of the same bias which makes language capacity be perceived as magical There's no charitable reading of this that doesn't give the researcher's way too little credit given the results of the direction they've chosen. This has nothing to do with biases and emotion, I'm not sure why some people need it to be: modalities have progressed in order of how easy they are to wrangle data on: text => image => audio => video. We've seen that training on more tokens improves performance, we've seen that training on new modalities improves performance on the prior modalities. It's so needlessly dismissive to act like you have this mystical insight into a grave error these people are making, and they're just seeking to replicate human language out of folly, when you're ignoring table stakes for their underlying works to start with.