6 ms·

> AI models now require trainers with advanced degrees Companies that create data for FM (foundational model) companies have been hiring people with degrees fo

> AI models now require trainers with advanced degrees Companies that create data for FM (foundational model) companies have been hiring people with degrees for years > Invisible Tech employs 5,000 specialized trainers globally Some of those companies have almost a million freelancers on their platforms, so 5k is honestly kinda medium sized. > It takes smart humans to avoid hallucinations in AI Many smart humans fail at critical thinking. I've seen people with masters fail at spotting hallucinations in elementary level word problems.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> Many smart humans fail at critical thinking. I've seen people with masters fail at spotting hallucinations in elementary level word problems. This is like lamenting that a person who has a doctoral degree, say, in mathematics or physics often don't have a more than basic knowledge about, for example, medicine or pharmacy.
- JCharante 2y ago
  It depends on your definition of smart. I think that holding a degree != smart.
  - aniviacat 2y ago
    > I think that holding a degree != smart. Does this mean that these two sentences are completely unrelated and only happen to exist within the same paragraph? > Many smart humans fail at critical thinking. I've seen people with masters [...] I've understood you to use "people with masters" as an example of "smart humans".
    - JCharante 2y ago
      Well the article began by talking about how before these data training companies would just hire generalists for $2/hr, but now they're hiring degree holders. And it mentions that smart people will be necessary. I'm just saying that degree holding != smart and it's a trap that those data training companies have to avoid.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > It depends on your definition of smart. I think that holding a degree != smart. You wrote: > I've seen people with masters fail at spotting hallucinations in elementary level word problems. I wanted to express that having a master in some (even complicated) subject does not make you a master at [pun intended] spotting hallucinations. To give evidence for this statement, I gave a different, more down-to-earth example of a similar situation.
    - JCharante 2y ago
      It was a math problem, like this. Q: A farmer has 72 chickens. He sells 15 chickens at the market and buys 8 new chicks. Later that week, a fox sneaks into the coop and eats 6 chickens. How many chickens could the farmer sell at the market tomorrow? AI Answer: The farmer started with 72 chickens. After selling 15, he had 57 chickens left. Then he bought 8 new chicks, bringing the total to 65. Finally, the fox ate 6 chickens, so we subtract 6 from 65. This gives us 59 chickens. Therefore, the farmer now has 59 chickens that he could sell at the market tomorrow. -- You'd expect someone who can read/understand proofs to be able to spot a a flow in the logic that it takes longer than 1 week for chicks to turn into chickens.
      - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > You'd expect someone who can read/understand proofs to be able to spot a a flow in the logic that it takes longer than 1 week for chicks to turn into chickens. Rather, I'd assume that someone who is capable of spotting the flow in the logic has a decent knowledge of the English language (in this case referring to the difference in meaning between "chick" and "chicken"). Many people who are good mathematicians (i.e. capable of "reading/understanding proofs" as you expressed it) are not native English speakers or have a great L2 level of English.
        Viliam1234 2y ago
        But I was told that humans have this thing called "general intelligence", which means they should be capable to do both math and English! If an AI made a similar mistake, people would laugh at it.
  - spencerchubb 2y ago
    Do you believe that holding a degree is dumb, or just that holding a degree is an insufficient condition for smartness? Technically what you wrote says the former
    - JCharante 2y ago
      Thanks. I meant that holding a degree does not guarantee that you are smart.
      - bapr 2y ago
        Yeah it’s a virtue signal that one has written some language that doesn’t focus on first person anecdote. It’s a sign someone is a hard drive of prior knowledge. We leaned on spoken tradition education to pass down knowledge as written literacy, paper, writing tools were hard to come by until the last century. It was never about the student but the future. Still the same today; one student isn’t propping up reality. People think learning a linguistic style means discovery of net new knowledge.
- visarga 2y ago
  > This is like lamenting that a person who has a doctoral degree, say, in mathematics or physics often don't have a more than basic knowledge in, for example, medicine or pharmacy. It was word problems not rocket science. That tells a lot about human intelligence. We're much less smart than we imagine, and most of our intelligence is based on book learning, not original discovery. Causal reasoning is based on learning and checking exceptions to rules. Truly novel ideation is actually rare. We spent years implementing transformers in a naive way until someone figured out you can do it with much less memory (FlashAttention). That was such a face palm, it was a trivial idea thousands of PhDs missed. And the code is just 3 for loops, with a multiplication, a sum and an exponential. An algorithm that fits on a napkin in its abstract form.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    Doesn't this lead you to, perhaps, question the category and measure of "intelligence" in general, especially how it is mobilized in this kind of context? Like this very angle does a lot to point out the contradictions in some speculative metaphysical category of "intelligence" or "being smart," but then you just seem to accept it in this particular kind of fatalism. Why not take away from this that "intelligence" is a word that obtains something relative to a particular society, namely, one which values some kind of behavior and speech over others. "Intelligence" is something important to society, its the individual who negotiates (or not) the way they think and learn with what this particular signifier connects with at a given place and time. Like I assume you don't agree, but just perhaps if we use our "intelligence" here we could maybe come to some different conclusions here! Everyone is just dying to be like mid-20th century behaviorist now, I just don't understand!
    - visarga 2y ago
      Yes, I think intelligence is social and we kind of write off the social part and prefer to think in heroic terms, like "Einstein was so smart!" I prefer to use the concept of search instead, it is better defined in search space and goal space. It doesn't hide the environment, the external part of intelligence, or the learning process.
  - 2y ago
- dilawar 2y ago
  I think many people like to believe that solving puzzles will somehow make them better at combinatorics. Lateral skill transfer in non-motor skills e.g. office works, academics works etc may not be any better than motor skills. It's easier to convince people that playing soccer everyday wouldn't make them any better at cricket, or even hockey.
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    But motor skills transfer extremely well. It's not uncommon for professional athletes to switch sports, some even repeatedly.
    - Der_Einzige 2y ago
      There’s some famous ass basketball players with mediocre but still existent MLB careers.
      - jononor 2y ago
        Wealth, network and fame transfers incredibly well between fields. Possibly better than anything else. It should be accounted for when reasoning about success in disparate fields. In addition to luck, of course.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > mediocre but still existent MLB careers. If you have a MLB career at all, you are an elite baseball player.
  - thatcat 2y ago
    Kobe Bryant played soccer, Michael Jordan played baseball, Lebron played football.. it actually makes you even better because you learn non traditional strategies to apply to the other sport you're playing.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
39896880 2y ago
All the models do is hallucinate. They just sometimes hallucinate the truth.
- therealdrag0 2y ago
  A great deal of my own thinking could be described as hallucinating, given a sufficiently loose definition.
- vharuck 2y ago
  Nice George Box paraphrasing.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

> Many smart humans fail at critical thinking. I've seen people with masters fail at spotting hallucinations in elementary level word problems. This is like lamenting that a person who has a doctoral degree, say, in mathematics or physics often don't have a more than basic knowledge about, for example, medicine or pharmacy.

JCharante 2y ago
It depends on your definition of smart. I think that holding a degree != smart.
- aniviacat 2y ago
  > I think that holding a degree != smart. Does this mean that these two sentences are completely unrelated and only happen to exist within the same paragraph? > Many smart humans fail at critical thinking. I've seen people with masters [...] I've understood you to use "people with masters" as an example of "smart humans".
  - JCharante 2y ago
    Well the article began by talking about how before these data training companies would just hire generalists for $2/hr, but now they're hiring degree holders. And it mentions that smart people will be necessary. I'm just saying that degree holding != smart and it's a trap that those data training companies have to avoid.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > It depends on your definition of smart. I think that holding a degree != smart. You wrote: > I've seen people with masters fail at spotting hallucinations in elementary level word problems. I wanted to express that having a master in some (even complicated) subject does not make you a master at [pun intended] spotting hallucinations. To give evidence for this statement, I gave a different, more down-to-earth example of a similar situation.
  - JCharante 2y ago
    It was a math problem, like this. Q: A farmer has 72 chickens. He sells 15 chickens at the market and buys 8 new chicks. Later that week, a fox sneaks into the coop and eats 6 chickens. How many chickens could the farmer sell at the market tomorrow? AI Answer: The farmer started with 72 chickens. After selling 15, he had 57 chickens left. Then he bought 8 new chicks, bringing the total to 65. Finally, the fox ate 6 chickens, so we subtract 6 from 65. This gives us 59 chickens. Therefore, the farmer now has 59 chickens that he could sell at the market tomorrow. -- You'd expect someone who can read/understand proofs to be able to spot a a flow in the logic that it takes longer than 1 week for chicks to turn into chickens.
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      > You'd expect someone who can read/understand proofs to be able to spot a a flow in the logic that it takes longer than 1 week for chicks to turn into chickens. Rather, I'd assume that someone who is capable of spotting the flow in the logic has a decent knowledge of the English language (in this case referring to the difference in meaning between "chick" and "chicken"). Many people who are good mathematicians (i.e. capable of "reading/understanding proofs" as you expressed it) are not native English speakers or have a great L2 level of English.
      - Viliam1234 2y ago
        But I was told that humans have this thing called "general intelligence", which means they should be capable to do both math and English! If an AI made a similar mistake, people would laugh at it.
- spencerchubb 2y ago
  Do you believe that holding a degree is dumb, or just that holding a degree is an insufficient condition for smartness? Technically what you wrote says the former
  - JCharante 2y ago
    Thanks. I meant that holding a degree does not guarantee that you are smart.
    - bapr 2y ago
      Yeah it’s a virtue signal that one has written some language that doesn’t focus on first person anecdote. It’s a sign someone is a hard drive of prior knowledge. We leaned on spoken tradition education to pass down knowledge as written literacy, paper, writing tools were hard to come by until the last century. It was never about the student but the future. Still the same today; one student isn’t propping up reality. People think learning a linguistic style means discovery of net new knowledge.
visarga 2y ago
> This is like lamenting that a person who has a doctoral degree, say, in mathematics or physics often don't have a more than basic knowledge in, for example, medicine or pharmacy. It was word problems not rocket science. That tells a lot about human intelligence. We're much less smart than we imagine, and most of our intelligence is based on book learning, not original discovery. Causal reasoning is based on learning and checking exceptions to rules. Truly novel ideation is actually rare. We spent years implementing transformers in a naive way until someone figured out you can do it with much less memory (FlashAttention). That was such a face palm, it was a trivial idea thousands of PhDs missed. And the code is just 3 for loops, with a multiplication, a sum and an exponential. An algorithm that fits on a napkin in its abstract form.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  Doesn't this lead you to, perhaps, question the category and measure of "intelligence" in general, especially how it is mobilized in this kind of context? Like this very angle does a lot to point out the contradictions in some speculative metaphysical category of "intelligence" or "being smart," but then you just seem to accept it in this particular kind of fatalism. Why not take away from this that "intelligence" is a word that obtains something relative to a particular society, namely, one which values some kind of behavior and speech over others. "Intelligence" is something important to society, its the individual who negotiates (or not) the way they think and learn with what this particular signifier connects with at a given place and time. Like I assume you don't agree, but just perhaps if we use our "intelligence" here we could maybe come to some different conclusions here! Everyone is just dying to be like mid-20th century behaviorist now, I just don't understand!
  - visarga 2y ago
    Yes, I think intelligence is social and we kind of write off the social part and prefer to think in heroic terms, like "Einstein was so smart!" I prefer to use the concept of search instead, it is better defined in search space and goal space. It doesn't hide the environment, the external part of intelligence, or the learning process.
- 2y ago
dilawar 2y ago
I think many people like to believe that solving puzzles will somehow make them better at combinatorics. Lateral skill transfer in non-motor skills e.g. office works, academics works etc may not be any better than motor skills. It's easier to convince people that playing soccer everyday wouldn't make them any better at cricket, or even hockey.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  But motor skills transfer extremely well. It's not uncommon for professional athletes to switch sports, some even repeatedly.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    There’s some famous ass basketball players with mediocre but still existent MLB careers.
    - jononor 2y ago
      Wealth, network and fame transfers incredibly well between fields. Possibly better than anything else. It should be accounted for when reasoning about success in disparate fields. In addition to luck, of course.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > mediocre but still existent MLB careers. If you have a MLB career at all, you are an elite baseball player.
- thatcat 2y ago
  Kobe Bryant played soccer, Michael Jordan played baseball, Lebron played football.. it actually makes you even better because you learn non traditional strategies to apply to the other sport you're playing.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

39896880 2y ago

All the models do is hallucinate. They just sometimes hallucinate the truth.

therealdrag0 2y ago
A great deal of my own thinking could be described as hallucinating, given a sufficiently loose definition.
vharuck 2y ago
Nice George Box paraphrasing.