5 ms·

It’s not massively underplaying it imo. AI hype is real. This is revolutionary technology that humanity has never seen before. But it happened at a time where

It’s not massively underplaying it imo. AI hype is real. This is revolutionary technology that humanity has never seen before. But it happened at a time where hype can be delivered at a magnitude never before seen by humanity as well to a degree of volume that is completely unnatural by any standard set previously by hype machines created by humanity. Not even landing on the moon has inundated people with as much hype. But inevitably like landing on the moon, humanity is suffering from hype fatigue. Too much hype makes us numb to the reality of how insane the technology is. Like when someone says the only thing stopping LLMs is hallucinations… that is literally the last gap. LLMs cover creativity, comprehension, analysis, knowledge and much more. Hallucinations is it. The final problem is targeted and boxed into something much more narrower then just build a human level AI from scratch. Don’t get me wrong. Hallucinations are hard. But this being the last thing left is not an underplay. Yes it’s a massive issue but yes it is also a massive achievement to reduce all of agi to simply solving just an hallucination problem.

taco_emoji 1y ago
Oh, buddy, LLM hallucinations are not the only gap left for AGI
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  It is. After that it's virtually indistinguishable from chatting with a human
indigoabstract 1y ago
I think you would have really enjoyed living in the '50s, when the future was bright and colonizing Mars was basically a solved problem. What we got instead is a bunch of wisecracking programmers who like to remind everyone of the 90–90 rule, or the last 10 percent.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Mars wasn't part of the 90-90 rule genius. If you know your history, it's mainly because political interest was lost. Technologically sending someone to mars is 100000000x more feasible than agi simply because the technology and theory exists such that we can do it. AGI is part of the last 10 percent rule. But like that's the entire issue. 90% is still 90% progress. That is massive. And the hype surrounding LLMs has made people forget how far 90% is. People are going, "LLMs are retarded because it has the IQ of a 5 year old". They don't realize how even getting it to the level of a 5 year old was impossible for decades and decades.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Wisecracking programmers lol. You talk as if programming is like something to be proud of. It’s one of the most lucrative jobs with ease of entry as a boot camp can turn someone from zero to hero in a year. And then you mouth off a buzz phrase not even coined by a programmer but repeated to the point of annoyance about how the final 10 percent is always the hardest as if programmers who copy the phrase are so smart. Bro the last 10 percent being the hardest doesn’t mean the previous 90 percent didn’t happen. The first 90 percent is a feat in itself and LLMs can now even do PRs. That was a feat no one just 5 years ago could have predicted was possible in our lifetimes. Idiot programmers and their generic wise cracks were the ones saying that AI would never be able to pass the Turing test and this was just 4 years ago.
NoGravitas 1y ago
> Like when someone says the only thing stopping LLMs is hallucinations… that is literally the last gap. What you are missing here is that the "hallucinations" you don't like and the "results" you do like are, in terms of the underlying process, exactly the same thing. They are not an aberration you can remove. Producing these kinds of results without "hallucinations" is going to require fundamentally different techniques. It's not a "last gap".
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  That's not true. There is we just need to find it. Humans have a condition called schizophrenia where we literally are incapable of differentiating hallucination and reality. What that capability is, is something we need to find out and discover for both ourselves and LLMs. For example: Mathematically speaking it's possible to know how far away an inferenced point is away from a cluster of real world data. That delta when fed back into the neural network can allow the LLM to know how speculative a response is. From there we can feed the response back into itself for refinement.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    You're confounding hallucination in humans, which is a purely sensory experience, and hallucinations in LLMs, which seems to be used to describe every kind of mistake and deficiency in LLMs. And even if we were to cure schizophrenia in humans, just what makes you think that it would apply to LLMs? Having an extremely weak conceptual model of the world and not being able to reason out of rather simple problems (like LLMs struggle with) isn't schizophrenia. This oversimplified explanation which posits that neural networks are just like human brains has truly gone too far now. > Mathematically speaking it's possible to know how far away an inferenced point is away from a cluster of real world data. And mathematically speaking, how would you accomplish this? As you probably know LLMs don't operate on conceptual ideas, they operate on tokens. That's why LLMs tend to fail when asked to do things that aren't well represented in their training data, they don't have a working model of the world even if they can fake it to a certain degree.
    - 1y ago

taco_emoji 1y ago

Oh, buddy, LLM hallucinations are not the only gap left for AGI

ninetyninenine 1y ago
It is. After that it's virtually indistinguishable from chatting with a human

indigoabstract 1y ago

I think you would have really enjoyed living in the '50s, when the future was bright and colonizing Mars was basically a solved problem. What we got instead is a bunch of wisecracking programmers who like to remind everyone of the 90–90 rule, or the last 10 percent.

ninetyninenine 1y ago
Mars wasn't part of the 90-90 rule genius. If you know your history, it's mainly because political interest was lost. Technologically sending someone to mars is 100000000x more feasible than agi simply because the technology and theory exists such that we can do it. AGI is part of the last 10 percent rule. But like that's the entire issue. 90% is still 90% progress. That is massive. And the hype surrounding LLMs has made people forget how far 90% is. People are going, "LLMs are retarded because it has the IQ of a 5 year old". They don't realize how even getting it to the level of a 5 year old was impossible for decades and decades.
ninetyninenine 1y ago
Wisecracking programmers lol. You talk as if programming is like something to be proud of. It’s one of the most lucrative jobs with ease of entry as a boot camp can turn someone from zero to hero in a year. And then you mouth off a buzz phrase not even coined by a programmer but repeated to the point of annoyance about how the final 10 percent is always the hardest as if programmers who copy the phrase are so smart. Bro the last 10 percent being the hardest doesn’t mean the previous 90 percent didn’t happen. The first 90 percent is a feat in itself and LLMs can now even do PRs. That was a feat no one just 5 years ago could have predicted was possible in our lifetimes. Idiot programmers and their generic wise cracks were the ones saying that AI would never be able to pass the Turing test and this was just 4 years ago.

NoGravitas 1y ago

> Like when someone says the only thing stopping LLMs is hallucinations… that is literally the last gap. What you are missing here is that the "hallucinations" you don't like and the "results" you do like are, in terms of the underlying process, exactly the same thing. They are not an aberration you can remove. Producing these kinds of results without "hallucinations" is going to require fundamentally different techniques. It's not a "last gap".

ninetyninenine 1y ago
That's not true. There is we just need to find it. Humans have a condition called schizophrenia where we literally are incapable of differentiating hallucination and reality. What that capability is, is something we need to find out and discover for both ourselves and LLMs. For example: Mathematically speaking it's possible to know how far away an inferenced point is away from a cluster of real world data. That delta when fed back into the neural network can allow the LLM to know how speculative a response is. From there we can feed the response back into itself for refinement.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  You're confounding hallucination in humans, which is a purely sensory experience, and hallucinations in LLMs, which seems to be used to describe every kind of mistake and deficiency in LLMs. And even if we were to cure schizophrenia in humans, just what makes you think that it would apply to LLMs? Having an extremely weak conceptual model of the world and not being able to reason out of rather simple problems (like LLMs struggle with) isn't schizophrenia. This oversimplified explanation which posits that neural networks are just like human brains has truly gone too far now. > Mathematically speaking it's possible to know how far away an inferenced point is away from a cluster of real world data. And mathematically speaking, how would you accomplish this? As you probably know LLMs don't operate on conceptual ideas, they operate on tokens. That's why LLMs tend to fail when asked to do things that aren't well represented in their training data, they don't have a working model of the world even if they can fake it to a certain degree.
  - 1y ago