6 ms·

That's really what these are: something analogous to JPEG for language, and queryable in natural language. Tangent: I was thinking the other day: these are not

by api 2y ago

That's really what these are: something analogous to JPEG for language, and queryable in natural language. Tangent: I was thinking the other day: these are not AI in the sense that they are not primarily intelligence. I still don't see much evidence of that. What they do give me is superhuman memory. The main thing I use them for is search, research, and a "rubber duck" that talks back, and it's like having an intern who has memorized the library and the entire Internet. They occasionally hallucinate or make mistakes -- compression artifacts -- but it's there. So it's more AM -- artificial memory. Edit: as a reply pointed out: this is Vannevar Bush's Memex, kind of.

antirez 2y ago
I believe LLMs are both data and processing, but even humans reasoning is based in strong ways on existing knowledge. However, for the goal of the post, indeed it is the memorization that is the key value, and the fact that likely in the future sampling such models can be used to transfer the same knowledge to bigger LLMs, even if the source data is lost.
- api 2y ago
  I'm not saying there is no latent reasoning capability. It's there. It just seems to be that the memory and lookup component is much more useful and powerful. To me intelligence describes something much more capable than what I see in these things, even the bleeding edge ones. At least so far.
  - antirez 2y ago
    I offer a POV that is in the middle: reasoning is powerful to evaluate which solution is better among N in the context. Memorization allows sampling of many competing ideas from the problem space, than the LLM picks the best, making chain of thoughts so effective. Of course zero shot reasoning also is a part of the story but somewhat weaker, exactly like we are not often able to spit the best solution before evaluation of the space (unless we are very accustomed to the specific problem).
  - danielbln 2y ago
    That's the problem with the term "intelligence". Everyone has their own definition, we don't even know what makes us humans intelligent and more often than not it's a moving goalpost as these models get better.
Mistletoe 2y ago
This is an excellent viewpoint.
menzoic 2y ago
Having memory is fine but choosing the relevant parts requires intelligence
flower-giraffe 2y ago
Or 80 years to MVP memex “Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think". Bush envisioned the memex as a device in which individuals would compress and store all of their books, records, and communications, "mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex
- mdp2021 2y ago
  The memex was a deterministic device to consult documents - the actual documents. The "LLM" is more like a dumb archivist that came with it ("Yes, see for example that document, it tells you that q=M·k...").
  - skydhash 2y ago
    I grew up with physical encyclopedia, then moved on to Encarta, then Wikipedia dumps and folders full of PDFs. I still prefer curated information repository over chat interfaces or generated summaries. The main goal with the former is to have a knowledge map and keywords graph, so that you can locate any piece of information you may need from the actual source.
hengheng 2y ago
I've been looking at it as an "instant reddit comment". I can download a 10G or 80G compressed archive that basically contains the useful parts of the internet, and then I all can use it to synthesize something that is about as good and reliable as a really good reddit comment. Which is nifty. But honestly it's an incredible idea to sell that to businesses.
- api 2y ago
  Reddit seems to puppet humans via engagement farming to do what LLMs do in some cases. Posts are prompts, replies are responses. Of course they vary widely in quality.
- Guthur 2y ago
  And so what would the point be of anyone actually posting on the internet if no one actually visits the sites because large corps have essentially stolen and monetized the whole thing. And I'm sure they have or will have the ability to influence the responses so you only see what they want you to see.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    That's the next step after algorithmic content feeds - algorithmic/generated comment sections. Imagine seeing an entirely different conversation happening just to get you to buy a product. A product like Coca-Cola. Imagine scrolling through a comment section that feels tailor-made to your tastes, seamlessly guiding you to an ice-cold Coca-Cola. You see people reminiscing about their best summer memories—each one featuring a Coke in hand. Others are debating the superior refreshment of Coke over other drinks, complete with "real" testimonials and nostalgic stories. And just when you're feeling thirsty, a perfectly timed comment appears: "Nothing beats the crisp, refreshing taste of an ice-cold Coke on a hot day." Algorithmic engagement isn’t just the future—it’s already here, and it’s making sure the next thing you crave is Coca-Cola. Open Happiness.
    - adhamsalama 2y ago
      Isn't that how Reddit gained momentum? Posting fake posts/comments? Now we can mass-produce it!
yannyu 2y ago
There's a great article recently by Ted Chiang that elaborated on this idea: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-...
bob1029 2y ago
If you want to see what this would actually be like: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/lossifizer/ https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/lossifizer/ I think a fun experiment could be to see at what setting the average human can no longer decipher the text.
GolfPopper 2y ago
>like having an intern who has memorized the library and the entire Internet. They occasionally hallucinate or make mistakes Correction: you occasionally notice when they hallucinate or make mistakes.
xpe 2y ago
I regularly pushback against casual uses of the word “intelligence”. First, there is no objective dividing line. It is a matter of degree relative to something else. Any language that suggests otherwise should be refined or ejected from our culture and language. Language’s evolution doesn’t have to be a nosedive. Second, there are many definitions of intelligence; some are more useful than others. Along with many, I like Stuart Russell’s definition: the degree to which an agent can accomplish a task. This definition requires being clear about the agent and the task. I mention this so often I feel like a permalink is needed. It isn’t “my” idea at all; it is simply the result of smart people decomplecting the idea so we’re not mired in needless confusion. I rant about word meanings often because deep thinking people need to lay claim to words and shape culture accordingly. I say this often: don’t cede the battle of meaning to the least common denominators of apathy, ignorance, confusion, or marketing. Some might call this kind of thinking elitist. No. This is what taking responsibility looks like. We could never have built modern science (or most rigorous fields of knowledge) with imprecise thinking. I’m so done with sloppy mainstream phrasing of “intelligence”. Shit is getting real (so to speak), companies are changing the world, governments are racing to stay in the game, jobs will be created and lost, and humanity might transcend, improve, stagnate, or die. If humans, meanwhile, can’t be bothered to talk about intelligence in a meaningful way, then, frankly, I think we’re … abdicating responsibility, tempting fate, or asking to be in the next Mike Judge movie.
- jart 2y ago
  We never would have been able to create science, if it weren't for focusing on the kinds of thinking that can be made logical. There's a big difference. What you're doing, with this whole "let's make a bullshit word logical" is more similar to medieval scholasticism, which was a vain attempt at verbal precision. https://justine.lol/dox/english.txt https://justine.lol/dox/english.txt
  - xpe 2y ago
    Yikes, maybe we can take a step back? I'm not sure where this is coming from, frankly. One anodyne summary of my comment above would be: > Let's think and communicate more clearly regarding intelligence. Stuart Russell offers a nice definition: an agent's ability to do a defined task. Maybe something about my comment got you riled up? What was it? You wrote: > What you're doing, with this whole "let's make a bullshit word logical" is more similar to medieval scholasticism, which was a vain attempt at verbal precision. Again, I'm not quite sure what to say. You suggest my comment is like a medieval scholar trying to reconcile dogma with philosophy? Wow. That's an uncharitable reading of my comment. I have five points in response. First, the word intelligence need not be a "bullshit word", though I'm not sure what you mean by the term. One of my favorite definitions of bullshitting comes from "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt: > Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false. - Wikipedia Second, I'm trying to clarify the term intelligence by breaking it into parts. I wouldn't say I'm trying to make it "logical" (in the sense of being about logic or deduction). Maybe you mean "formal"? Third, regarding the "what you're doing" part... this isn't just me. Many people both clarify the concept of intelligence and explain why doing so is important. Fourth, are you saying it is impossible to clarify the meaning of intelligence? Why? Not worth the trouble? Fifth, have you thought about a definition of intelligence that you think is sensible? Does your definition steer people away from confusion? You also wrote: > We never would have been able to create science, if it weren't for focusing on the kinds of thinking that can be made logical. I think you mean _testable_, not _logical_. Yes, we agree, scientists should run experiments on things that can be tested. Russell's definition of intelligence is testable by defining a task and a quality metric. This is already a big step up from an unexamined view of intelligence, which often has some arbitrary threshold.* It allows us to see a continuum from, say, how a bacteria finds food, to how ants collaborate, to how people both build and use tools to solve problems. It also teases out sentience and moral worth so we're not mixing them up with intelligence. These are simple, doable, and worthwhile clarifications. Finally, I read your quote from Dijkstra. In my reading, Dijkstra's main point is that natural language is a poor programming interface due to its ambiguity. Ok, fair. But what is the connection to this thread? Does it undercut any of my arguments? How? * A common problem when discussing intelligence involves moving the goal post. Whatever quality bar is implied has a tendency to creep upwards over time.*
mdp2021 2y ago
> JPEG for [a body of] language Yes! > artificial memory Well, "yes", kind of. > Memex After a flood?! Not really. Vannevar Bush - As we may think - http://web.mit.edu/STS.035/www/PDFs/think.pdf http://web.mit.edu/STS.035/www/PDFs/think.pdf
visarga 2y ago
I can ask a LLM to write a haiku about the loss function of Stable Diffusion. Or I can have it do zero shot translation, between a pair of languages not covered in the training set. Can your "language JPEG" do that? I think "it's just compression" and "it's just parroting" are flawed metaphors. Especially when the model was trained with RLHF and RL/reasoning. Maybe a better metaphor is "LLM is like a piano, I play the keyboard and it makes 'music'". Or maybe it's a bycicle, I push the pedals and it takes me where I point it.

by api 2y ago

antirez 2y ago

I believe LLMs are both data and processing, but even humans reasoning is based in strong ways on existing knowledge. However, for the goal of the post, indeed it is the memorization that is the key value, and the fact that likely in the future sampling such models can be used to transfer the same knowledge to bigger LLMs, even if the source data is lost.

api 2y ago
I'm not saying there is no latent reasoning capability. It's there. It just seems to be that the memory and lookup component is much more useful and powerful. To me intelligence describes something much more capable than what I see in these things, even the bleeding edge ones. At least so far.
- antirez 2y ago
  I offer a POV that is in the middle: reasoning is powerful to evaluate which solution is better among N in the context. Memorization allows sampling of many competing ideas from the problem space, than the LLM picks the best, making chain of thoughts so effective. Of course zero shot reasoning also is a part of the story but somewhat weaker, exactly like we are not often able to spit the best solution before evaluation of the space (unless we are very accustomed to the specific problem).
- danielbln 2y ago
  That's the problem with the term "intelligence". Everyone has their own definition, we don't even know what makes us humans intelligent and more often than not it's a moving goalpost as these models get better.

Mistletoe 2y ago

This is an excellent viewpoint.

menzoic 2y ago

Having memory is fine but choosing the relevant parts requires intelligence

flower-giraffe 2y ago

Or 80 years to MVP memex “Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think". Bush envisioned the memex as a device in which individuals would compress and store all of their books, records, and communications, "mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex

mdp2021 2y ago
The memex was a deterministic device to consult documents - the actual documents. The "LLM" is more like a dumb archivist that came with it ("Yes, see for example that document, it tells you that q=M·k...").
- skydhash 2y ago
  I grew up with physical encyclopedia, then moved on to Encarta, then Wikipedia dumps and folders full of PDFs. I still prefer curated information repository over chat interfaces or generated summaries. The main goal with the former is to have a knowledge map and keywords graph, so that you can locate any piece of information you may need from the actual source.

hengheng 2y ago

I've been looking at it as an "instant reddit comment". I can download a 10G or 80G compressed archive that basically contains the useful parts of the internet, and then I all can use it to synthesize something that is about as good and reliable as a really good reddit comment. Which is nifty. But honestly it's an incredible idea to sell that to businesses.

api 2y ago
Reddit seems to puppet humans via engagement farming to do what LLMs do in some cases. Posts are prompts, replies are responses. Of course they vary widely in quality.
Guthur 2y ago
And so what would the point be of anyone actually posting on the internet if no one actually visits the sites because large corps have essentially stolen and monetized the whole thing. And I'm sure they have or will have the ability to influence the responses so you only see what they want you to see.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  That's the next step after algorithmic content feeds - algorithmic/generated comment sections. Imagine seeing an entirely different conversation happening just to get you to buy a product. A product like Coca-Cola. Imagine scrolling through a comment section that feels tailor-made to your tastes, seamlessly guiding you to an ice-cold Coca-Cola. You see people reminiscing about their best summer memories—each one featuring a Coke in hand. Others are debating the superior refreshment of Coke over other drinks, complete with "real" testimonials and nostalgic stories. And just when you're feeling thirsty, a perfectly timed comment appears: "Nothing beats the crisp, refreshing taste of an ice-cold Coke on a hot day." Algorithmic engagement isn’t just the future—it’s already here, and it’s making sure the next thing you crave is Coca-Cola. Open Happiness.
  - adhamsalama 2y ago
    Isn't that how Reddit gained momentum? Posting fake posts/comments? Now we can mass-produce it!

yannyu 2y ago

There's a great article recently by Ted Chiang that elaborated on this idea: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-...

bob1029 2y ago

If you want to see what this would actually be like: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/lossifizer/ https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/lossifizer/ I think a fun experiment could be to see at what setting the average human can no longer decipher the text.

GolfPopper 2y ago

>like having an intern who has memorized the library and the entire Internet. They occasionally hallucinate or make mistakes Correction: you occasionally notice when they hallucinate or make mistakes.

xpe 2y ago

I regularly pushback against casual uses of the word “intelligence”. First, there is no objective dividing line. It is a matter of degree relative to something else. Any language that suggests otherwise should be refined or ejected from our culture and language. Language’s evolution doesn’t have to be a nosedive. Second, there are many definitions of intelligence; some are more useful than others. Along with many, I like Stuart Russell’s definition: the degree to which an agent can accomplish a task. This definition requires being clear about the agent and the task. I mention this so often I feel like a permalink is needed. It isn’t “my” idea at all; it is simply the result of smart people decomplecting the idea so we’re not mired in needless confusion. I rant about word meanings often because deep thinking people need to lay claim to words and shape culture accordingly. I say this often: don’t cede the battle of meaning to the least common denominators of apathy, ignorance, confusion, or marketing. Some might call this kind of thinking elitist. No. This is what taking responsibility looks like. We could never have built modern science (or most rigorous fields of knowledge) with imprecise thinking. I’m so done with sloppy mainstream phrasing of “intelligence”. Shit is getting real (so to speak), companies are changing the world, governments are racing to stay in the game, jobs will be created and lost, and humanity might transcend, improve, stagnate, or die. If humans, meanwhile, can’t be bothered to talk about intelligence in a meaningful way, then, frankly, I think we’re … abdicating responsibility, tempting fate, or asking to be in the next Mike Judge movie.

jart 2y ago
We never would have been able to create science, if it weren't for focusing on the kinds of thinking that can be made logical. There's a big difference. What you're doing, with this whole "let's make a bullshit word logical" is more similar to medieval scholasticism, which was a vain attempt at verbal precision. https://justine.lol/dox/english.txt https://justine.lol/dox/english.txt
- xpe 2y ago
  Yikes, maybe we can take a step back? I'm not sure where this is coming from, frankly. One anodyne summary of my comment above would be: > Let's think and communicate more clearly regarding intelligence. Stuart Russell offers a nice definition: an agent's ability to do a defined task. Maybe something about my comment got you riled up? What was it? You wrote: > What you're doing, with this whole "let's make a bullshit word logical" is more similar to medieval scholasticism, which was a vain attempt at verbal precision. Again, I'm not quite sure what to say. You suggest my comment is like a medieval scholar trying to reconcile dogma with philosophy? Wow. That's an uncharitable reading of my comment. I have five points in response. First, the word intelligence need not be a "bullshit word", though I'm not sure what you mean by the term. One of my favorite definitions of bullshitting comes from "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt: > Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false. - Wikipedia Second, I'm trying to clarify the term intelligence by breaking it into parts. I wouldn't say I'm trying to make it "logical" (in the sense of being about logic or deduction). Maybe you mean "formal"? Third, regarding the "what you're doing" part... this isn't just me. Many people both clarify the concept of intelligence and explain why doing so is important. Fourth, are you saying it is impossible to clarify the meaning of intelligence? Why? Not worth the trouble? Fifth, have you thought about a definition of intelligence that you think is sensible? Does your definition steer people away from confusion? You also wrote: > We never would have been able to create science, if it weren't for focusing on the kinds of thinking that can be made logical. I think you mean _testable_, not _logical_. Yes, we agree, scientists should run experiments on things that can be tested. Russell's definition of intelligence is testable by defining a task and a quality metric. This is already a big step up from an unexamined view of intelligence, which often has some arbitrary threshold.* It allows us to see a continuum from, say, how a bacteria finds food, to how ants collaborate, to how people both build and use tools to solve problems. It also teases out sentience and moral worth so we're not mixing them up with intelligence. These are simple, doable, and worthwhile clarifications. Finally, I read your quote from Dijkstra. In my reading, Dijkstra's main point is that natural language is a poor programming interface due to its ambiguity. Ok, fair. But what is the connection to this thread? Does it undercut any of my arguments? How? * A common problem when discussing intelligence involves moving the goal post. Whatever quality bar is implied has a tendency to creep upwards over time.*

mdp2021 2y ago

> JPEG for [a body of] language Yes! > artificial memory Well, "yes", kind of. > Memex After a flood?! Not really. Vannevar Bush - As we may think - http://web.mit.edu/STS.035/www/PDFs/think.pdf http://web.mit.edu/STS.035/www/PDFs/think.pdf

visarga 2y ago

I can ask a LLM to write a haiku about the loss function of Stable Diffusion. Or I can have it do zero shot translation, between a pair of languages not covered in the training set. Can your "language JPEG" do that? I think "it's just compression" and "it's just parroting" are flawed metaphors. Especially when the model was trained with RLHF and RL/reasoning. Maybe a better metaphor is "LLM is like a piano, I play the keyboard and it makes 'music'". Or maybe it's a bycicle, I push the pedals and it takes me where I point it.