6 ms·
I’m still waiting for SalesForce to integrate an LLM into Slack so I can ask it business logic and decisions long lost. Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate
by aurareturn 2y ago
I’m still waiting for SalesForce to integrate an LLM into Slack so I can ask it business logic and decisions long lost. Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook so I can get a summary of a 20 email long chain I just got CCed into.
I don’t think the iPod comparison is a valid one. People only have so much time to listen to music. Past a certain point, no one has enough good music they like to put into a 3TB iPod. However, the more data you feed into an LLM, the smarter it should be in the response. Therefore, the scale of iPod storage and LLM context is on completely different curves.
- moomoo11 2y agoAren’t you afraid ur gonna be given hallucinating information? That’s my biggest worry. I’ve set up my own RAG and it’s kind of sad how even that is not super accurate.
- Propelloni 2y agoMost data around is junk and the internet produces junk data faster then useful data and current GPT AIs basically regurgitate what someone already did somewhere on the internet. So I guess the more data we feed into GPTs the worse the results will get. My take to improve AI output is to heavily curate the data you feed your AI, much the like expert systems of old (which were lauded as "AI" also.) Maybe we can break the vicious circle of "I trained my GPT on billions of Twitter posts and let it write Twitter posts to great sucess", "Hey, me too!"
- threeseed 2y ago> My take to improve AI output is to heavily curate the data you feed your AI This is what OpenAI is doing with their relationships with companies like Reddit, News Corp etc: https://openai.com/index/news-corp-and-openai-sign-landmark-multi-year-global-partnership/ https://openai.com/index/news-corp-and-openai-sign-landmark-... Problem is that we have a finite amount of this type of information.
- vidarh 2y agoThere are multiple companies hiring people on contracts to curate and generate data for this. I do confidential contract work for two different ones at the moment, and while my NDAs limit how much I can say, it involves both identifying issues with captured prompt/response pairs that have been filtered, and writing synthetic ones from scratch aided by models (e.g. come up with a coding problem, and rewrite the response to be "perfect"). The first category has obviously been pre-filtered to put cheaper resources in simpler problems, as sometimes these projects pays reasonable tech contract rates for 1-2 hours of work to improve only 2-3 conversation turns of a single conversation, and it's clear they usually involve more than one person reviewing the same data. A lot of money is pouring into that space, and the moats in the form of proprietary training data heavily curated by experts is going to be growing rapidly given how much cash the big players have.
- Propelloni 2y agoThanks for your insights! Would you say, this is an approach suited for "general" GPTs (not in the sense of AGI) or more for expert systems like Copilot?
- vidarh 2y agoI can't really say I know whether the outcomes are good as I won't be told to what extent the output makes it into production models, and I don't even always know which company it's for. But I know at least some of it is being used for "general" models. I do more code-related work than general purpose as it's the work I find most interesting, but the highest paid contract I've had in this space so far is for a general-purpose model that to my knowledge isn't available yet, for a model from a company you'd know (but I'm under strict NDA not to mention the company name or more details about the work).
- surfingdino 2y ago> integrate an LLM into Slack They are already training their models https://slack.com/intl/en-gb/trust/data-management/privacy-principles https://slack.com/intl/en-gb/trust/data-management/privacy-p... > Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook Unlikely to happen. Orgs that use MS products do not want content of emails leaking and LLMs leak. There is a real danger that an LLM will include information in the summary that does not come from the original email thread, but from other emails the model was trained on. You could learn from the summary that you are going to get fired, even though that was not a part of the original conversation. HR doesn't like that. > However, the more data you feed into an LLM, the smarter it should be in the response Not necessarily. At some point you are going to run out of current data and you might be tempted to feed it past data, except that data may be of poor quality or simply wrong. Since LLMs cannot tell good data from bad, they happily accept both leading to useless outputs.
- geoduck14 2y ago>>Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook Didn't they already do this? A friend of mine showed me his outlook where he could search all emails, docs, and video calls and ask it questions. To be fair, he and I asked it questions about a video call and a doc - but not any emails, we only searched emails. This was last week amd it worked "mostly OK," but having a q/a conversation with a long email feels inevitable
- derefr 2y agoAsking questions about a document is one thing; asking questions that synthesize information across many documents — the human-intelligent equivalent of doing a big OLAP query with graph-search and fulltext-search parts on your email database — is quite another. Right now AFAICT the latter would require the full text of all the emails you've ever sent, to be stuffed into the context window together.
- bongodongobob 2y agoYes this is already a thing. Copilot for m365 fine tunes on your entire orgs data.
- bongodongobob 2y agoBoth of these already exist. Slack just introduced AI and copilot for M365 products has been available for quite a while now. It works great, I use it every day.
- kenjackson 2y agoOutlook already does summarization with CoPilot. I use it everyday. I think summarization is one of the strengths of LLMs and it really shines here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/summarize-an-email-thread-with-copilot-in-outlook-a79873f2-396b-46dc-b852-7fe5947ab640 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/summarize-an-emai...
- mvdtnz 2y agoSlack literally launched that feature today! In fact I posted about it on hn this morning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40841057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40841057
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago> Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook Given that Microsoft this year is all-in on LLM AI, this is surely coming. But perhaps it will be a premium, paid feature?
- ravelantunes 2y agoThis exists and is available for paid users. My company started experimenting with it recently and it can be fairly helpful for long threads: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/summarize-an-email-thread-with-copilot-in-outlook-a79873f2-396b-46dc-b852-7fe5947ab640#:~:text=Select%20Summarize%20in%20the%20Summary,create%20a%20summary%20for%20you https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/summarize-an-emai....
- hhh 2y agoIt’s an additional $20-30/user/mo license, and has already existed in production for several months.
- belter 2y agoThey will sooner do that than fix Teams....
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y agoThe teams discussion was 3 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786640 I am happy with my comments there, including "MS could devote resources to making MS Teams more useful, but they don't have to, so they don't."
- richrichie 2y ago> the more data you feed into an LLM, the smarter it should be in the response This is not obvious though.
- aurareturn 2y agoIt’s in theory. The more information you have, the better the decision in theory.
- threeseed 2y agoIt's quality not quantity. You need to have accurate, properly reasoned information for better decisions.
- coredog64 2y agoIt’s a good thing that SFDC and Slack are both well known for being a repository of high quality data. /sarc
- richrichie 2y agoNot quite. There are bounds on capacity of learning machines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapnik%E2%80%93Chervonenkis_dimension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapnik%E2%80%93Chervonenkis_di...
- palad1n 2y agoAnyone got a TL;DR on this?
- vidarh 2y agoThink about an AI with a 1 bit model. If you feed that AI data that can't possibly be classified into less than 2 bits, it can't get it precisely right, no matter how much data you train it on, or what the 1 bit of the model represents. For any given size of system, there will be a ceiling on what it can learn to classify or predict with precision. I used "system" rather than "model" there for a reason: Memory in any form, such as context and RAG or API access to anything that can store and retrieve data affects the maximum - a turing machine can be implemented with a very small model + a loop if there's access to an external memory to act like the tape. But if the "tape" is limited, there will be some limitation on what the total system can precisely classify.
- lispm 2y ago> However, the more data you feed into an LLM, the smarter it should be in the response. Is it that way? For example if it lacks a certain reasoning capability, then more data may not change that. So far LLMs lack useful ideas of truth, it will easily generate untrue statements. We see lots of hacks how to control that, with unconvincing results.
- aurareturn 2y agoThat has not been my experience with GPT4 and GPt4o. Maybe you’re using worse models? The point is that the more context an LLM or human has, the better decision it can make in theory. I don’t think you can debate this. Hallucinations and LLM context scale are more engineering problems.
- theteapot 2y agoI think the argument was, GPT4 can't learn to do Math from more data. I'd be surprised if that's not true.
- threeseed 2y agoChatGPT makes mistakes doing basic arithmetic or sorting numbers. Pretty sure we have enough data for these fundamental tasks.
- pestaa 2y agoIt's more than enough data for a specialized tool, yes. It's not even remotely enough data for a statistical language processor.
- derefr 2y agoWhy are young children able to quickly surpass state-of-the-art ML models at arithmetic tasks, from only a few hours of lecturing and a "training dataset" (worksheets) consisting of maybe a thousand total examples? What is happening in the human learning process from those few thousand examples, to deduce so much more about "the rules of math" per marginal datapoint?
- ant6n 2y ago> Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook so I can get a summary of a 20 email long chain I just got CCed into. Still waiting Microsoft to add a email search to Outlook that isn’t complete garbage. Ideally with a decent UI and presentation of results that isn’t complete garbage. …why are we hoping that AI will make these products better, when they’re not using conventional methods appropriately, and have been enshittified to shit.
- cerved 2y agoWhy should the response be better just because there is "more data"? Should I be adding extra random tokens to my prompts to make the LLM "smarter"?
- aurareturn 2y agoMore context. Not random data.
- MattPalmer1086 2y agoHaha, I'd be happy if outlook just integrated a search that actually works. Most of outlook search results aren't even relevant, and it regularly misses things I know are there. Literally the most useless search I've ever had to use.
- grugagag 2y agoThat’s exactly my thoughts. If search is broken, expecting LLMs to fix that sounds naive or just disingenious.
- tnel77 2y agoDon’t get me started on Outlook’s search. I can try to search for an email that’s only a few weeks old and somehow it won’t find it. It will, however, find emails that are from over a decade ago.
- denkmoon 2y agoIf they can't make an effective basic text search, I doubt they're going to manage an LLM integration that doesn't return straight up garbage.
- 7speter 2y agoRight, thats why they give openai gobs of money for their llm research
- zeekaran 2y agoMost useless ever? You've used a Windows OS, right?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoThe fact that one chap's decade-old freeware[0] is 100x better search than the current native tool of a trillion-dollar technology corp is my proof that there is a god, and their name is Loki. [0]https://www.voidtools.com/support/everything/ https://www.voidtools.com/support/everything/