4 ms·

>Right now the cheering on of AI is overwhelming It's both, the level of criticism is also overwhelming and delusional. I hear things like, AI will never be a

>Right now the cheering on of AI is overwhelming It's both, the level of criticism is also overwhelming and delusional. I hear things like, AI will never be as smart as me!, It will never take over my job, Look it got this and this wrong, No chance it can ever be as smart as me! It's always a comparison to their own abilities so I think a lot of it is just an attempt to stay relevant in a world where technology is about to replace all of us. I think by now everyone knows the limitations of current LLMs. The result of this "in depth" analysis is not only expected but very obvious. Nobody is surprised and none of this is suppressed because it's so obvious. What's delusional is the amount of criticism around the performance. The denial that AI is more and more matching human intelligence. Of course it's not there yet, but LLMs made a giant leap and bridged a huge gap. AI is no match for humanity now, that much is obvious. I think the delusion lies in the fact that many people are trying to deny the trendline... the obvious future and trajectory of what progress has been pointing too. Milestones are getting surpassed at a frightening pace. AI is now running circles around the turing test and I can now ride a car with no driver and it's normal in SF. We are here bitching about the fact that AI shortens a text rather then summarizing it without remarking at the fact that you can actually bitch to the AI directly about this fact and demand the AI to stop shortening the text and start summarizing it.

__loam 2y ago
The problem with this take is that you're conflating different software systems under the same vague AI umbrella. Waymo is a completely different technology than generative AI. Talking about how over a decade and billions of dollars in R&d in self driving is finally bearing fruit has nothing to do with the performance of LLMs. It is true that LLMs appear to be an exciting technology, but it's also delusional to assume they're following a positive trendline. Performance between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 was like a 25% improvement that took 2500% more resources to train. It's clear that there's diminishing returns to bigger and bigger models, and the trend we've been seeing in the industry is actually smaller models trained for longer periods in an effort to bring down inference costs while maintaining current performance. More intelligent models may require new techniques and technologies that we don't have yet. I'm sure it will get better but the path to improving isn't as obvious as you're making it sound. Making comparisons to Moore's law is also disengenuous because we're actually running into physical limits on how dense we can make chips due to the size of atoms themselves, so past trends for technological development may not continue to bear out.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Obviously the overall trend I'm referring to is AI from a more general perspective. Deep learning. You are doing exactly as I said. Focusing on obvious criticisms on the current state of the art. We know the obvious pitfalls of LLMs. It's completely obvious nowadays. I also never pointed to an obvious path forward. I pointed to the an obvious trend that indicates whether you like it or not, we will move forward. >It is true that LLMs appear to be an exciting technology, but it's also delusional to assume they're following a positive trendline. Performance between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 was like a 25% improvement that took 2500% more resources to train. It's clear that there's diminishing returns to bigger and bigger models, and the trend we've been seeing in the industry is actually smaller models trained for longer periods in an effort to bring down inference costs while maintaining current performance. AI is following a trendline. I never said specifically LLMs are exactly on this trendline. LLMs are only a part of this trendline along with other technologies and part of the overall progress deep learning is making. It is extremely likely that there will be an AI that will solve all of current issues with LLMs in the coming decades. Whether that AI is some version of an LLM remains to be seen. >Making comparisons to Moore's law is also disengenuous because we're actually running into physical limits on how dense we can make chips due to the size of atoms themselves, so past trends for technological development may not continue to bear out. I never made a comparison to moores law... are you replying to me or someone else? AI with the performance of a human brain is highly realizable despite physical limits because intelligence to the level of the human brain already EXISTS. The existence of humans themselves is testament to the possibility it can be done and is not a fundamental limit.
  - __loam 2y ago
    The brain is not a computer. Continued insistence that it is will result in heartbreak for the computer scientists involved.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Fortunately nothing of the sort has happened. Not sure what you’re referring to here.

__loam 2y ago

The problem with this take is that you're conflating different software systems under the same vague AI umbrella. Waymo is a completely different technology than generative AI. Talking about how over a decade and billions of dollars in R&d in self driving is finally bearing fruit has nothing to do with the performance of LLMs. It is true that LLMs appear to be an exciting technology, but it's also delusional to assume they're following a positive trendline. Performance between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 was like a 25% improvement that took 2500% more resources to train. It's clear that there's diminishing returns to bigger and bigger models, and the trend we've been seeing in the industry is actually smaller models trained for longer periods in an effort to bring down inference costs while maintaining current performance. More intelligent models may require new techniques and technologies that we don't have yet. I'm sure it will get better but the path to improving isn't as obvious as you're making it sound. Making comparisons to Moore's law is also disengenuous because we're actually running into physical limits on how dense we can make chips due to the size of atoms themselves, so past trends for technological development may not continue to bear out.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Obviously the overall trend I'm referring to is AI from a more general perspective. Deep learning. You are doing exactly as I said. Focusing on obvious criticisms on the current state of the art. We know the obvious pitfalls of LLMs. It's completely obvious nowadays. I also never pointed to an obvious path forward. I pointed to the an obvious trend that indicates whether you like it or not, we will move forward. >It is true that LLMs appear to be an exciting technology, but it's also delusional to assume they're following a positive trendline. Performance between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 was like a 25% improvement that took 2500% more resources to train. It's clear that there's diminishing returns to bigger and bigger models, and the trend we've been seeing in the industry is actually smaller models trained for longer periods in an effort to bring down inference costs while maintaining current performance. AI is following a trendline. I never said specifically LLMs are exactly on this trendline. LLMs are only a part of this trendline along with other technologies and part of the overall progress deep learning is making. It is extremely likely that there will be an AI that will solve all of current issues with LLMs in the coming decades. Whether that AI is some version of an LLM remains to be seen. >Making comparisons to Moore's law is also disengenuous because we're actually running into physical limits on how dense we can make chips due to the size of atoms themselves, so past trends for technological development may not continue to bear out. I never made a comparison to moores law... are you replying to me or someone else? AI with the performance of a human brain is highly realizable despite physical limits because intelligence to the level of the human brain already EXISTS. The existence of humans themselves is testament to the possibility it can be done and is not a fundamental limit.
- __loam 2y ago
  The brain is not a computer. Continued insistence that it is will result in heartbreak for the computer scientists involved.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Fortunately nothing of the sort has happened. Not sure what you’re referring to here.