4 ms·

It is hard to accept as a premise because the premise is questionable from the beginning. Google already reported several breakthroughs as a direct result of A

It is hard to accept as a premise because the premise is questionable from the beginning. Google already reported several breakthroughs as a direct result of AI, using processes that almost certainly include LLMs, including a new solution in math, improved chip designs, etc. DeepMind has AI that predicted millions of protein folds which are already being used in drugs among many other things they do, though yes, not an LLM per se. There is certainly the probability that companies won’t announce things given that the direct LLM output isn’t copyrightable/patentable, so a human-in-the-loop solves the issue by claiming the human made said breakthrough with AI/LLM assistance. There isn’t much benefit to announcing how much AI helped with a breakthrough unless you’re engaged in basically selling AI. As for “why aren’t LLMs creating breakthroughs by themselves regularly”, that answer is pretty obvious… they just don’t really have that capacity in a meaningful way based on how they work. The closest example is Google’s algorithmic breakthrough absolutely was created by a coding LLM, which was effectively achieved through brute force in a well established domain, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a breakthrough. That alone casts doubt on the underlying premise of the post.

Yizahi 1y ago
You are contradicting yourself. Either LLM programs can do breakthrough on their own, or they don't have that capacity in a meaningful way based on how they work.
js8 1y ago
I would say that real breakthrough was training NNs as a way to create practical approximators for very complex functions over some kind of many-valued logics. Why they work so well in practice we still don't fully theoretically understand (in the sense we don't know what kind of underlying logic best models what we want from these systems). The LLMs (and application to natural language) are just a consequence of that.
starlust2 1y ago
> through brute force The same is true of humanity in aggregate. We attribute discoveries to an individual or group of researchers but to claim humans are efficient at novel research is a form of survivorship bias. We ignore the numerous researchers who failed to achieve the same discoveries.
- suddenlybananas 1y ago
  The fact some people don't succeed doesn't show that humans operate by brute force. To claim humans reason and invent by brute force is patently absurd.
  - preciousoo 1y ago
    It’s an absurd statement because you are human and are aware of how research works on an individual level. Take yourself outside of that, and imagine you invented earth, added an ecosystem, and some humans. Wheels were invented ~6k years ago, and “humans” have existed for ~40-300k years. We can do the same for other technologies. As a group, we are incredibly inefficient, and an outside observer would see our efforts at building societies and failing to be “brute force”
    - suddenlybananas 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      I consider humans an "intelligent" species in the sense that a critical mass of us can organize to sustainably learn. As individuals, without mentors, we would each die off very quickly. Even if we were fed and whatever until we were physically able to take care of ourselves, we wouldn't be able to keep ourselves out of trouble if we had to learn everything ourselves. Contrast this with the octopus which develops from an egg without any mentorship, and within a year or so has a fantastically knowledgable and creative mind over its respective environment. And they thrive in every oceanic environment in the wet salty world, including coast lines, under permanent Arctic ice, to the deep sea. To whatever degree they are "intelligent", it's an amazingly accelerated, fully independent, self-taught intelligence. Our species just can't compare on that dimension. Fortunately, octopus only live a couple years and in an environment where technology is difficult (very hard to isolate and control conditions of all kinds in the ocean). Otherwise, the land octopus would have eaten all of us long ago.
  - tmaly 1y ago

Yizahi 1y ago

You are contradicting yourself. Either LLM programs can do breakthrough on their own, or they don't have that capacity in a meaningful way based on how they work.

js8 1y ago

I would say that real breakthrough was training NNs as a way to create practical approximators for very complex functions over some kind of many-valued logics. Why they work so well in practice we still don't fully theoretically understand (in the sense we don't know what kind of underlying logic best models what we want from these systems). The LLMs (and application to natural language) are just a consequence of that.

starlust2 1y ago

> through brute force The same is true of humanity in aggregate. We attribute discoveries to an individual or group of researchers but to claim humans are efficient at novel research is a form of survivorship bias. We ignore the numerous researchers who failed to achieve the same discoveries.

suddenlybananas 1y ago
The fact some people don't succeed doesn't show that humans operate by brute force. To claim humans reason and invent by brute force is patently absurd.
- preciousoo 1y ago
  It’s an absurd statement because you are human and are aware of how research works on an individual level. Take yourself outside of that, and imagine you invented earth, added an ecosystem, and some humans. Wheels were invented ~6k years ago, and “humans” have existed for ~40-300k years. We can do the same for other technologies. As a group, we are incredibly inefficient, and an outside observer would see our efforts at building societies and failing to be “brute force”
  - suddenlybananas 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    I consider humans an "intelligent" species in the sense that a critical mass of us can organize to sustainably learn. As individuals, without mentors, we would each die off very quickly. Even if we were fed and whatever until we were physically able to take care of ourselves, we wouldn't be able to keep ourselves out of trouble if we had to learn everything ourselves. Contrast this with the octopus which develops from an egg without any mentorship, and within a year or so has a fantastically knowledgable and creative mind over its respective environment. And they thrive in every oceanic environment in the wet salty world, including coast lines, under permanent Arctic ice, to the deep sea. To whatever degree they are "intelligent", it's an amazingly accelerated, fully independent, self-taught intelligence. Our species just can't compare on that dimension. Fortunately, octopus only live a couple years and in an environment where technology is difficult (very hard to isolate and control conditions of all kinds in the ocean). Otherwise, the land octopus would have eaten all of us long ago.
- tmaly 1y ago