Every "AI" related business idea I've seen prop up recently is people just hooking up a textbox to ChatGPT's API and pretending they're doing something novel or impressive, presumably to cash in on VC money ASAP. The Notion AI is an absolute fucking joke of epic proportions in its uselessness yet they keep pushing it in every newsletter
And a funny personal anecdote, a colleague of mine tried to use ChatGPT4 when answering a customer question (they work support). The customer instantly knew it was AI-generated and was quite pissed about it, so the support team has an unofficial rule to not do that any more.
By the time someone has read a second paragraph, they have internalized what was at the beginning, and to be told that those two paragraphs were fiction is now to attack the reader instead of the text.
As though reading were so laborious, there's a sunk cost fallacy.
I’ve already used the openai api to automate several genuinely difficult things for myself. Mostly acting as a translator from natural language to structured output.
I do agree it is massively overhyped and there will be an inevitable sentiment correction.
Can I ask what exactly that means/does?
With the Wolfram plug-in, this works and provides good data! It stops three short of the goal probably due to rate limiting, but I think you can get the point: https://chat.openai.com/share/9d6695a9-5ba8-44d8-9ec8-11fcba...
This same kind of query works with any reasonable structured data format.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Give+me+a+JSON+document...
A 10% efficiency boost that some programmers are experiencing could translate into an extra 5 weeks off if you are smart about it, so it is quite life changing for some.
Would you mind expanding on that a bit? I've largely had great experiences getting what I want out of ChatGPT. But I've been continually surprised by the number (and variety) of people who don't see the utility of it.
For the non-chat interfaces, I imagine a whiteboarding session with a really competent intern at the board, rapid prototyping / wireframing that you can play with "live" and refine far further than you could IRL, but still ultimately prototyping.
> I've been continually surprised by the number (and variety) of people who don't see the utility of it.
If you _don't_ do it this way, you can easily fall into all sorts of time wasting anti-patterns; if you try to trick it, or allow yourself to be easily fooled by it, get stubborn & closed minded, pedantic and argumentative or whatever, well, there are lots of examples of how those sorts of interactions go in the training data too, and it will just as happily go down them as any other.
My team raised a support issue with one of our suppliers due to some unexpected API behaviour and got an unusually flowery reply that completely contradicted the API documentation... fairly sure that was ChatGPT.
Honestly not that bothered about LLMs as they could be helpful in customer support particularly when agents might not be fluent English speakers (or just help when you're trying to be polite in adverse circumstances), but some basic proofreading would help. And don't let it hallucinate APIs.
Comparisons between AI and crypto are horribly misguided IMO.
Is AI overhyped? Sure. However -
AI/ML is creating utility everywhere in our lives - speech to text, language translation, recommendation engines, relevancy ranking in search, computer vision, etc. and seems to be getting embedded in more and more processes by the day.
Crypto never amounted to anything beyond a currency for black market transaction, a vehicle for speculation, and a platform for creating financial scams.
But what it already has begun to do, and will continue to do is change the way we interact with computers. The era of having a personal voice assistant that is capable, adaptable, and intuitive is VERY close and that is something that's exciting. Siri and Alexa are going to look downright primitive compared to what we'll have in the next 2-5 years and that is going to be VERY mainstream, and VERY useful for huge swaths of the population.
Crypto still hasn't proven itself to be useful in any way shape or form that isn't immediately over-shadowed by a different medium.
Intuitive to use? Or has intuition?
“Intuitive to use” roughly means that it is easy for a human to interact with.
“Intuition” is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
Google and Amazon have tried to sell theirs for a long time. And none were actually selling much. Amazon admitted to be selling theirs at a loss. Facebook has tried their own - and quickly cancelled them. Google's is in every Android device - and yet pretty much nobody uses them. Even Apple's Siri is more annoyance than help.
That something can be built doesn't mean it will sell or that people will actually want to use it. If you create a solution looking for an imaginary problem that your marketing thinks is what people want instead of a solution that solves a real existing problem, you do get a solution looking for a problem ...
Also, answering questions and communicating in natural language is the easy part of such assistant. For the thing to be useful it must be able to actually do something too. Which is incredibly difficult beyond the (closed) ecosystem of its vendor. Thirdparty integrations are usually driven by who pays the manufacturer for the SDK and partner contract (seen as a marketing opportunity), not by what the users actually want it to integrate with. Hoping for one of these with an open API that anyone could integrate whatever they want with, I am not holding my breath here.
OpenAI is already on it. The latest gen of GPT-3 and -4 are finetuned to respond to "do this thing" commands with JSON structured to:
- provide the name of a given function call
- provide arguments to that function call
it's "early stage", which in this case probably means "good enough to be useful within a month or two", given the rate at which these things have been developing.
Anecdotally, I've been playing with giving the models instructions like:
"When asked to perform a task that you need a tool to accomplish, you will call the tool according to its documentation by this format:
TOOL_NAME(*args)
Below you will find the documentation for your tools."
...and I've gotten it working pretty damn well (not even with the JSON-finetuned models, mind you). All you really need is python-style docstrings and a minimal parser and you're off to the races. I recommend anyone interested play with it a bit.
Dream on.
This is not a technical problem, this is a business problem. Sadly a lot of engineers don't understand that.
The thing is, I've managed to get this working as an interface for a whole segment of stuff that was a pain in the ass before. My task list is all in one place for the first time, and it talks! With words! I have a pair programmer, who is excited to do stuff, on the command line, 24/7. They also have encyclopedic knowledge of anything that isn't a super deep cut, so I can move through more spaces and find solutions that I never would have dreamed of due to the cognitive load of sifting through textbooks and documentation just to create a [ insert more or less anything here].
If you're looking at the folks here who are getting excited and wondering "What's up with *them*?, this is it. It's not about the Next Big Thing so much as it's about "Holy shit, computers are magic again". For themselves.
Of course, I can speak for some of us. For sure, the hungry lets-make-a-startup folks exist and are currently working on doing that - and that's fine. But to me that's boring. Commerce and markets and economies are toxic to creativity. I've tried Bing-with-GPT and it's AWFUL compared to GPT-4, despite being sorta the same underlying thing.
I'm perfectly happy paying OpenAI to use the thing they built, for myself, for now. I am seriously looking forward to migrating to locally run models, once we get there (and we will).
They couldn't have released this at a better time, I have about 30 plugins and i'd say it manages to get the right one about 90% of the time as opposed to about 70 with my hacked together version (but I guess I wrote it and know what to say so maybe that's a bit skewed)
@Tool
def add_todo(title, project=None) -> str:
"""
Add a new TODO.
Args:
title (str): A brief description of the task
project (str, optional): A project to add the todo to, if requested
"""
logger.debug(f"Adding task: {title}")
task = Task(tw, description=title, project=project)
task.save()
return f"Added [ {title} ] to the { project + ' ' if project else '' }TODO list."I don't really see either of those things as a real possibility. Within my lifetime, anyway.
You’re treating it as a fact that LLM are going to replace existing products, at some unknown future date.
“In 5 years, all code will be written by AI”
“In 5 years, LLM will replace Siri and Alexa”
“In 5 years, AI will replace [sector of jobs]”
The thing that frustrates me about these statements is that you don’t know what AI technology is going to look like in 5 years, so stop treating it like a fact. It’s possible LLM are useful in all of these places, but we don’t know that yet.
Pontificating their nonsense around the hype about LLMs to the point where they don't even trust it. The same thing they did with ConvNets and they still don't trust that either since they both hallucinate, frequently.
I can guarantee you that people will not trust an AI to fly a plane without any human pilots on board end-to-end (auto-pilot does not count) and it is simply due to the fundamental black-box nature of these so-called 'AI' models being untrustworthy in high risk situations.
I like to think of capable LLMs as pf gifted interns. I can expect decent results if I explain well enough, but I need processes around them to make sure they are doing what they are told. In my industry thats enough to produce a noticeable productivity gain, and likely some reduction of employment as its a low margin cut throat business relying on low grade knowledge workers. I see the hype and honestly cant stand it, but its measureably impacting my industry and the world around me.
Except humans can transparently explain themselves and someone can be held to account when something goes wrong. Humans have the ability to have differing opinions and approaches to solve unseen problems.
An AI however cannot explain itself transparently and just resorts to regurgitating whatever output it has been trained on and black-box AI models have no clear method of any transparent reasoning meaning that it cannot be held to account.
Any unseen problem it encounters, it falls back to fixed guardrails and just repeats a variation or re-wording on what it already has said. Especially LLMs.
Except humans are excellent at finding excuses to avoid explaining themselves and being held to account, or to justify some misguided belief based on whatever output they have been "trained on" in their past.
People often seem to apply standards to AI in terms of rationality and reliability which even many humans cannot achieve, using terms like "hallucination" when we've seen humans do the exact same by confidently talking about things they know nothing about. Everyone laughed at Bing insisting on a wrong date to avoid admitting it's wrong about the Avatar 2 release, when that's very typical behaviour of humans in certain situations.
I'm not trying to make LLMs seem better than they are, but parts of its weaknesses are not surprising given the training data.
All I did was hold it's hand, it wrote every line of code. You are living in fantasy land if you think we will be writing lines of code in 10 years.
I was with you until that sentence. No, LLMs will not write all our code and the reason is very simple: coding is easier than reviewing code. Not to mention the additional complexities and weirdness that we've always dealt with without even thinking about it.
We can see in Photoshop what's coming for developers: context-sensitive AI autocompletion and gap filling. Copilot but more mature and integrated, perhaps with additional checks that prevent some bugs being inserted. And troubleshooting, the area where I think we can profit the most.
but will ChatGPT help you debug and fix a production issue that came about due to a Kafka misconfiguration? will it be able to find the deadlock in your code that is causing requests to be dropped? will it suggest a path forward when you need to replace an obscure library that hasn't been updated in 5 years? will it be able to make sense of seemingly contradictory business requirements?
Wake me up when ChatGPT is able to write and maintain a POS system, or an online store with attached fulfillment management. Anything that goes beyond a fancy 100-line script. Anything that people actually hire teams of senior devs, business analysts and software architects for.
Stone ages. That’s not 5 years from now. That’s today.
I do and ChatGPT code is rarely useful for me. I can prompt it well enough to do language related stuff for me, but the code it can write for me is more like a highly custom boilerplate that I still need to refactor.
Even for green field private projects, at first it looks fine, bit the bugs are more likely to be traced back to these snippets than not.
I can't trust GPT, and neither can you. But if it really can do all your coding for you, what stops your employer from replacing you with a secretary from a temp agency?
It's so stupid for engineers to say that ChatGPT codes for them. They are shooting themselves in the face. They are devaluing the entire profession. Why? My reaction to all those breathless online demos was to point out the difference between what they were showing and what an engineer really does. Your reaction is to act like being a prompt jockey is the new way of engineering. How does that give you pride in yourself?
Personally, I think LLMs are a step forward, but I suspect that GTP-4 is close to the limit of what’s possible with LLMs. I don’t think we’re going to see AGI from the same approach.
There doesn't seem to be a rush because it makes the implementation a lot more expensive, and those things are, I suspect, not profitable products (revenue sources) to their respective companies. They are a kind of enhancement to a layer of products and services; people take them for granted now and so you can't take them away.
A smarter Google Assistant would do nothing for Google's bottom line, and in fact it would cost more money to operate.
If it's not done right, it could ruin the experience. For instance, it cannot have worse latency on common queries than the old assistant.
That’s a fact.
I also know that voice-interfaces to date have been incredibly stiff and there is ample room for improvement. I know, for a fact, that having AI enable better voice interfaces will make computing better and more accessible. I have a hard time understanding how those are hype-driven comments and/or opinions.
We do know these things for a fact. Not being able to articulate exactly which breakthroughs will be most important doesn’t make it hype.
Year of the voice assistant is getting close to year of Linux on desktop.
What you’re promising has been promised time and time again, received endless hype cycles then collapsed once people realised the limits of the technology. Yes, this time the tech is much more capable than what came before but I’m inclined to believe we’ll yet again find a limit that means we’re using it for some things but our lives still aren’t drastically changed.
Case in point, I asked Siri to change my work address. She stated that I needed to use the Contacts app to do that. This is not very helpful. The issue here is not Siri’s inability to understand what I want, it is that the Contacts app does not support this method of data input. Siri is also probably not very good at extracting structured address information from me via natural language, but the new LLMs can do this easily.
…which is something an LLM won’t help with.
“Just design an open ended API capable of doing absolutely anything someone might ask ChatGPT to do” is not the simple task you’re making it out to be!
There's a reason why people describe ChatGPT as a "research tool": you often need to do a bunch of iterations to get it to do the correct thing. And that's fine because it's non-destructive. But it's very far from a world where you can let it loose on a production, writable database and trust that it's going to do the correct thing.
No idea how well, so I assume "badly"; but the API is already there.
Seems like it has proven very useful for Stripe [0], Moneygram [1], TicketMaster [2], etc.
Unlike AI which continues to consume tons of resources to burn the entire world down to the ground without any viable efficient methods of training, inference or fine-tuning their AI models in the past decade with its chatbot hype and gimmickry [3], crypto does not need to consume tons of CO2 to operate, thanks to alternative and greener consensus algorithms available in production today. [4]
Being 'useful' is not an excuse to destroy the planet around untrustworthy AI models getting themselves confused over a single pixel or hallucinating in the middle of the road.
[0] https://stripe.com/gb/use-cases/crypto
[1] https://stellar.org/moneygram
[2] https://business.ticketmaster.com/business-solutions/nft-tok...
[3] https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons-training...
[4] https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/ethereum-blockchain...
Do you understand what a massive impact that has been? It has disrupted one of the largest industries on the planet, which is drug trafficking.
"Cocaine News" with Donald Trump Jr. | The Daily Show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47yFRXZqB0g
Don Jr. Swears He’s Not on Coke—He’s Just ‘Impassioned’:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-jr-is-tired-of-co...
People are buying drugs on the darknet, who would never buy it on the streets or want to be associated with regular drug users.
[1] https://www.unodc.org/res/wdr2021/field/WDR21_Booklet_2.pdf
That’s exactly the hype talk that’s going to burst this bubble.
Here’s tech’s dirty little secret. Despite all the screams about automation and universal basic income… the exact numbers where job replacement would show are in the labor productivity numbers. If GDP stays flat or grows while the number of jobs is reduced… bingo… you’d see that number climb.
Productivity has actually stayed flat or gone down over the last 15 years. Despite the fact that we’ve had trillion dollar corporate behemoths now. Despite that fact that we’re enabling a surveillance state Orwell couldn’t imagines. Despite the polarization we see. And teen anxiety going through the roof along teen/pre-teen suicides.
When you said AI (and in my view tech in general) are everywhere, I’m guessing this wasn’t what you meant…
That person gave a list of tech they were talking about in their comment immediately afterwards: "speech to text, language translation, recommendation engines, relevancy ranking in search, computer vision, etc. and seems to be getting embedded in more and more processes by the day."
I'm not sure it's worth quibbling over whether we should use the term "everywhere" or "in many places"; the general point stands that it's found many different uses, and has done what effective tech does - fade into the background in many cases, just becoming part of our daily lives.
Sure, we're not seeing the off the wall predictions from the singularity crowd, but it seems to be tech that most people find broadly useful.
My favorite explanation is that many new technologies end up redistributing wealth rather than creating it, which certainly tracks with both subjective and quantified growth in inequality on the same time period. However, a slightly more optimistic take is that tech is aligning production better with people's preferences, so that the same productivity enables people to live more distinct lifestyles that suit them.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-to-solve-the-puzzle-o...
If this is a good explanation, it begs the question of what AI might do to destroy productivity as well. If you’re constantly sexting with your AI girlfriend, who just happens to be extraordinary adept at tapping into your sexual proclivities, maybe you won’t get as many support tickets resolved as your boss was hoping.
More hypothetically, I would also expect that a world in which people spend a lot of time with screens strapped to their head, consuming an infinite stream of entertainment provided by generative AI, is not going to produce higher GDP.
Yeah, I think this dovetails with the idea that IT may be satisfying preference allocations without increasing overall production. Watching 10 movies a month on a streaming service adds much less to the GDP than going to the cinema 10x, but if the selection is better it might satisfy you more. Economists sometimes attempt to measure this with "utility adjustments" which recognize increasing quality in the same goods, but it's very hard for those adjustments to account for the hidden preferences of the consumers as opposed to objective qualities of a good or service.
Information goods like social media and streaming, financial services like pay-me-later, and conveniences like next-day delivery are all examples of activities that might suit preferences without showing up in GDP. They also may enable distraction, waste, reclusiveness and impulsiveness in ways we'd like to avoid as a society. At the same time they might also help some people feel more included and less lonely or trapped by circumstance.
The explanation sounds pretty familiar, so I might have already read/heard this from Klein, but would you mind sharing a link?
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id...
Have you looked for housing in Columbus, Ohio?
In many places you can't be thrown in jail for being homeless anymore. Many cities have more housing and shelters and free kitchens than ever before. Some places even give you a smartphone and basic plan. Etc.
It's also much harder to get servants in that house. I wonder why...
The second one is a lagging indicator. If lots of people bought their homes when they were cheap and are still alive, it will take time for the real impact to be visible.
Edit: Tracking real numbers in homelessness is also just extremely difficult.
No time off. No health care. Operate 24/7. No unions. No work safety concerns. No lawsuits over being unfairly fired. Control over exactly how something gets done or said.
If only the AIs will stop hallucinating or can consistently comply with policies …
I'm starting to wonder how much this matters.
People do crazy shit on the clock all the time. Company reps do not always adhere to policy 100% of the time either. People engage in office politics, coworkers accuse others of whatever, mistakes get made. LLMs happen to emulate all of this behavior.
In theory, we could replace everybody with AI and not much would be different. Productivity increase is debatable but cost savings would be immense. The question is how much insanity we're willing to tolerate as a result.
(...and seeing what fun ensues when there are more people than available jobs.)
Given our elected representatives, I don't think that's a problem. No offense to any party or person. But we've consistently proven that we can tolerate and welcome way more insanity than seems reasonable.
Measuring "Goods" in units or tons is bit simplistic. Almost everything is much better that it was 15-20 years back. TV, cars, phones, computers. This difference probably should be counted as 'extra', shouldn't it?
Driving, picking/packing, animal care, doing laundry - Absolutely nothing you mention is in any way some new 21st century job that didn't exist before. They're all just normal traditional jobs.
Translation is an interesting example: some labor has been displaced, but not nearly all because there's still value in having human eyes carefully checking the translation of high value documents. But free translation let's regular people translate things freely - a new capability which displaced no one.
However, productivity measures human productivity and human labor. The very cheap new translation modality is therefore completely missed by productivity measurements.
Meanwhile, there's /more/ jobs available right now, despite all of this. The US has hit a historic low in unemployment and wages are going up, leading to a decline in measured productivity. Productivity is output per dollar of wages, which means we twist our hands in anxiety when workers start doing better...
AI is already so ubiquitous and useful that you blindly take it for granted without even thinking.
Spanish, for example, has many examples of words that are innocuous in one dialect and profane in another.
Bad translations are present in product names & descriptions of at least 70% of all products on Amazon and Ebay I've seen, and it doesn't look like it hurts the business in any way.
Big difference between "buy this $5 plastic crap widget despite its product description being barely coherent because there's only so many seconds you're willing to spare searching for 'Plastic Crap Widget' because Familiar Tech Company's algorithm puts CBSPOO ahead of VRIENGLU in this particuar search parameter combo" and "hello professionals in niche market. You will recognise the name of our product whenever you next have $xx,xxx to spend on these services, because we were the one whose ad was inadvertently extremely sexist"
Others, however, do care. I, for one, will pass on something that has bad translation because I take that as a proxy for the quality of the product overall.
Last year, for an important letter that had to be written in Japanese, a language that I don't know. Using Google Translate for that was unthinkable, because Google Translate is pretty poor and I had no way of checking and correcting the translated text.
Government can print as much of the latter as they want; wealth goes up when we can collectively buy more and down when we can collectively buy less, regardless of how many dollarpounds that is.
But GDP is measured in money, and can only connect to wealth if we get get inflation right, but that's really hard because inflation depends on what you want to buy — childcare costs don't matter if you have no kids of that age.
That said, I trust the domain experts to get this right, even though the various governments may be incentivised to claim their own preferred numbers. Even at worst, they'll have thought of vastly more influences than I can even imagine.
If I was going to name the biggest good thing AI has done to humanity so far is the ability to read internet sites in other languages like Chinese (Google sucks at it, you have to use other tools, I use an app called "tap translate screen"). Also ability to do voice to text and translation at the same time on mobile devices (currently requires online connection).
As for the rest of your comment... please don't hijack other conversations for soapboxing on the industry as a whole. Instead, submit your post and open a real conversation.
My life is permeated by tech (and big part of it is AI) and made 100 times easier. I can buy a plane ticket to another country while waiting for a subway (did people use to take an hour to go to a special place, wait in line and talk to human to buy a ticket? I still remember this). I go there and quickly navigate in a city I know next to nothing about, find something niche, like cool local cafés in the area because GPS and google maps. I go to a restaurant and I can use google translate to understand the menu. I don't even need to type unfamiliar words, AI scans the image and translates it on the fly. The same google translate with speech recognition AI helps me to converse with a person when we don't share any common language. I can click couple of buttons and video-call my mum who lives on the other side of the world. If I need to buy something I need very rarely, I can order it online and not think where I find a shop that sells those things. Even if I don't know the right word, I can now ask chatgpt "what do you call in German that fancy thing you mount on the ceiling and attach lights to it?"
My life is _hugely_ more efficient thanks to tech and AI. Does it help me to contribute more to the abstract economic growth? I don't know, perhaps not. But I just don't care about GDP.
I lack the economics knowledge to do more than parrot the response I've heard to this, so take this with the appropriate level of "hmmm":
As I understand it, the counter-claim is that the measure of GDP mostly excludes exactly the set of things that grows absurdly fast.
For example, the measure of inflation may include the cost of a smartphone in the standard basket of goods, but not the fact the GPU of a smartphone (or Apple TV) of today, operating in double precision mode, can do more than the Numerical Wind Tunnel supercomputer in 1993 costing 100 million dollars.
Or that everyone has a free encyclopaedia a hundred times the size of the Encyclopædia Britannica.
And maps which for most users are as good as Ordnance Survey, but free and worldwide, when the actual OS prices for just the UK is… currently discounted to £2,818.17, from £4,025.97.
Or that getting you genome sequenced now costs a grand rather than 3 billion. Although that might not yet even be in the basket, I don't know where the actual baskets of goods get listed in most cases, and search results aren't helping — one result, on a government website, lists "health", but even digging into the spreadsheet didn't illuminate much detail there.
The UK basket of goods is here https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/arti... and the various sublinks.
Source: This week’s Kurzgesagt, right?
Maybe you design a wrench that is 1000x cheaper and faster to use and more reliable. Well, if it makes your car building operation 0.0001% faster, that's the impact. The details of the wrench and how impressive it is are irrelevant to any observer.
If having your genome sequenced leads to far longer or better lives then we would see the impact in productivity. Same with everything else on the list.
I think the contention is with AI suddenly being redefined as only referring to language models, and the view that intelligence has been solved by these models.
There has clearly been a massive marketing push to label these models as the "one true AI", both from companies and from AI influencers. This is where the echo chamber exists, and it's easy to get stuck in it.
Maybe I am wrong and we have solved intelligence. But I seriously doubt it.
1. ChatGPT was released for general-purpose use. It's not a data science team at a FAANG company or healthcare or finance enterprise using ML for a specific business need. It's there for anyone to ask it anything.
2. A design decision was made to have ChatGPT output words in "real time" instead of all-at-once after a delay. To the user, that makes it look and feel like it's consciously and actively responding to you in a way that animated ellipses do not. I never knew what it would feel like talking to an AI, but when I first used ChatGPT, I thought: this must be it.
As always, sounds cool. Actually do some of it and then let's talk more.
No wonder that its adoption for legal purposes didn't go anywhere.
Cryptobros thought that they are smarter than central banks and didn't bother to implement proper monetary policy in the Bitcoin protocol to prevent its volatility.
Real interest rates are typically positive, so no, you are not.
Want to elaborate? Bitcoins monetary policy is beautiful in its simplicity and predictability. In that sense, it stands in stark contrast to fiat.
Some of the applications crypto folks were going on about: decentralization (of course) until the IRS started taxing your crypto transactions; helping 3rd world countries with weak currencies (partially happened); international trade (quickly became untrue and monitored by government agencies), ledgers for tech companies (they can all already build audit trails. i've yet to see many applications where companies are willing to give up control over their trust to a 3rd party system with no scrubbing functionality. looking at you, AWS status page).
Like I said, same vibe, different applications. Until some are built it's all just hype and conjecture. The applications we've seen work well are already well-accepted for their faults (content generation, summarization, etc)
For most people that's a promise for the future, but beside some translation tools (who are far from perfect) there is not much.
For instance: semantic search is and was a big topic, but so far even ChatGPT is not a real answer, Stable Diffusion is very nice if you want to produce some cartoon alike graphics or some porn deepfakes, but just not ready for simple common photo editing tasks. OCRs have gotten better, but still nothing that "by magic" makes a badly scanned piece of paper into an almost-native clean pdf and so one.
Yes, there is much progress and potential, but not much for real world usages.
Both have resulted in a bunch of hopefuls starting companies, in order to attract mountains of venture capital. Companies that will only have a loose connection to the tech that drives the hype.
Is there any insight from this observation?
Yes: be deeply skeptical of anyone claiming tech they are personally invested in is revolutionary.
The tech religious overhype train is here to stay. There has never been a more established need for calm honesty.
So speaking of echo chambers…
You know very well that that's not what GP is referring to. Speech to text, natural language translation, recommendation, and computer vision are all very useful things, but also were very much real and in consumer hands long before the current hype cycle.
Generative AIs are in their hype cycle. IMO the tech is overhyped to hell and back, but it will still probably yield better results than Crypto, there are legitimate uses for it. But those uses need to be ok with an 80% correct solution, which is not sufficient for all the things LLM hypelords are saying they can be used for and there is no path forward for closing that 20% gap.
Fortnite Bucks, Mt Gox trading cards, skulls of adult humans and guano also "have the potential to become the world's reserve currency", but it seems unreasonable to put the burden on proof on the people arguing that they won't be.
Fabulous, I'll be stealing that ...
AI only does bad things to me so far: surveillance, spam, fakes, search results poisoned, twitter and reddit closed up because of it etc.
Where is my automatic captcha solver? Where is a robot that will get me to a live person in a support call? Where is a spam filter that doesn't send all useful emails to spam? Where is a filter to hide fake reviews on Amazon? To fight against Amazon's crazy product ranking system? Such useful things are nowhere on the horizon.
Until then, you’ll get a lot of “it’s a really hard problem to solve!” Coupled with zero progress.
> Where is a filter to hide fake reviews on Amazon?
While it[1] doesn’t hide, it can generate some insightful information about fake reviews for me.
Disclaimer: Not affiliated, only a happy person using FakeSpot since this year.
Overall economic productivity didn't shoot up in the last decade despite the dramatic progress we had in software and hardware (e.g. [1]), and it's not clear that AI/ML will dramatically change that. Yes searching pictures on my iphone by text is convenient and Netflix recommendations might be more addictive, but the path from that to ubiquitous economic prosperity, safety, and comfort (the technoutopia many here are striving for) is not clear at all. It's also not very clear if those marginal improvements are worth the substantial share of total human brainpower thrown at them.
[1] https://www.aei.org/economics/good-news-bad-news-on-us-produ...
Nope. The hype around AI by the AI bros is totally similar with the crypto bros back then.
> AI/ML is creating utility everywhere in our lives - speech to text, language translation, recommendation engines, relevancy ranking in search, computer vision...
Yet I guarantee that you don't trust any of their outputs for any serious applications and you need to constantly check for it's reliability since its output is often wrong, inaccurate or even outright nonsense. You don't trust it yourself, which that is the problem of this entire hype cycle.
On top that, it is all at the expense of the planet getting incinerated with no efficient alternatives to counter the amount of extreme waste of resources that these systems are consuming. [1] [2]
> Crypto never amounted to anything beyond a currency for black market transaction, a vehicle for speculation, and a platform for creating financial scams.
'never'
So Moneygram, Stripe, Checkout.com, etc using it is 'never amounted to anything'? If it was only for financial scams, all of them would have stopped using it a long time ago.
They simply didn't because financial scams on a transparent public ledger is a scammers nightmare and sounds like a very poor platform for creating financial scams.
But maybe you need to look outside of the AI bubble and see the trillions of dollars in which the banks have allowed in actual black market transactions by criminals in the FinCEN files [0] which is nothing compared to crypto.
[0] https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ai-chatgpt-water-usage-envir...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/20/business/fincen-banks-sus...
[2] https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons-training...
In the case of AI: both potentially quite useful (unlike crypto) and incredibly, toxically overhyped (just like crypto).
Ironically, the fact that a lot of people think "You it's actually kind of useful sometimes, therefore you can't compare it crypto/web3" is part of the engine that drives the hype.
Both don't seem to work.
no
calling something "hype" should not be a stand-in for data
Consider how power structures (eg nation states) may change in such a future.
Likewise, speech to text and language translation are more available, but they're still pretty bad. And computer vision is much better than 10 years ago, but I wouldn't bet anyone's life on it.
And yet, the hype train is still gaining momentum. Having been through more than my share of AI winters, I can feel another one coming and it's going to be bad.
I've predicted 9 of the last 1 AI winters.
If you are a machine-learning practitioner, you should be familiar with all of those techniques and how they are used so that you can solve practical problems with them. But if you just read about AI in the news and figure you're going to found the next great startup and make a billion off it, you'll probably start by feeding a whole bunch of data into Tensorflow and then getting useless garbage out of it.
This hype bubble is specifically about LLMs, extremely large-parameter transformers that are trained on all the data OpenAI or Google can get their hands on. And then supposedly if you ask them the right questions, you will get useful answers back. For people that put in the time and experimentation to actually find the right questions and the right applications, that will probably be true - but the hype is that this will change everything, and it most certainly will not, just in the same way that beam search is frequently useful but it definitely does not change everything.
But slick promoters will nevertheless manage to use people's lack of knowledge to redirect billions of dollars in capital into their and their employees' pockets, the same way that slick promoters used crypto to redirect billions of dollars in capital into their and their employees' pockets.
OpenAI which is funded by Microsoft and promoted by Microsoft account executives creates hype as if it's open although nothing, including its so-called open-source Whisper, is open. People feeding Microsoft pretend that "they" are revolutionizing the world. NVIDIA and Microsoft are making money out of these large models and positioning the bigger as the better.
AI is just like crypto, but better!
Not sure that's reaaaaaaaaaally going to bring people around.And the answers below, reducing the industry to « drugs » go in the same vein. Stuff like Chainlink working with Swift is not common knowledge and even if it is, it is considered as another nothingburger.
Well, apart from the fact that chatGPT is really incapable of developing a thought, and also apart from the fact that half will fail to delete sentences like "I'm a language model, so I can't..." (insert gist of question here), it's painfully obvious if something is LLM generated.
The moment a sentence like "it's crucial to remember" pops up, I know what this is. Then, there's also the element that it always sounds like it's speaking to a child, and it avoids actually saying things unequivocally without some sort of disclaimer, as the legal department's CYA filter will ensure.
I remain thoroughly unimpressed by the entire venture. If this is Skynet 1.0, we're all safe for centuries to come.
Students who pay the $20 a month for it and are aware of its limitations will absolutely use it and it won't be obvious.
> "I'm a language model, so I can't..."
You won't catch the clever students who programmically remove these (e.g. using Langchain).
Michael Berubé has this story where he says, he once came early to class and overheard the students make great arguments about movies and shows they saw last night, discussing them heatedly. Then, when the lesson started, all the arguments turned bland, banal, reproductive.
Obvious conclusion: They -can- very well produce good insight, but the college and school systems discourage it. They reward them for repeating ideas they read in books about their things, or what the teacher said; an original idea is dangerous, because they're responsible for it themselves, and if the teacher doesn't like it, they'll get punished for it. Safer to say, "Miller said..." and shove off accountability to someone published.
I can see why you believe identifying GPT-generated text is easy. This is because techniques like prompt engineering, few-shot learning, and fine-tuning aren't known and used extensively yet. For instance, with a 32k model, you could input all your previous writings and the instruct gpt to mimic your style—even down to the grammar mistakes.
This requires having a massive amount of previous writings to input, otherwise gpt struggles actually differentiating styles enough to generate it consistently in the same way a human would. Most students do not have enough personal writing data to train from.
This also excludes other strategies, such as getting every student to write on paper in a supervised environment and using this to guide your pattern assessments of submitted electronic works. It's very difficult for people to remain consistent and implement their own style in gpt generation. You can ask the many creative writers who are trying to use gpt for stories, and how many of them have to treat generation as an extreme rough draft of plot points at best.
I think absolutely anyone claiming that detecting LLM generated text is easy is flat out lying to themselves, or has only spent a few tokens and very little time playing with it.
Take semi-decent output, give it a single proof read and a few edits... and I don't fucking believe anyone who says they'll detect it. They absolutely will detect some of the most egregious examples of it, but assuming that's all of it is near willfully naive at this point.
They aren't going to risk getting expelled. Schools have done a good job of putting the fear of God into kids to not use chatGPT. Better to just not turn a paper in than to be accused of plagiarism.
All chatGPT shows to me is we have a ton of smart, incredibly closed minded people that know what they know and they think they have it all figured out.
My paper would be easy to spot if chatGPT helped because the writing would be so much better. The thoughts would be much better organized.
I just asked Chat GPT 4 to explain the religious significance of the Wizard of Oz as a literary critic. Here's some of what it gave me, it doesn't write anything like you claim it does:
"Moreover, Dorothy's companions -- the Scarecrow seeking a brain (wisdom), the Tin Man seeking a heart (love/compassion), and the Lion seeking courage (strength) -- symbolize spiritual virtues that are often extolled in religious texts. They embark on this quest together, mirroring the communal aspect of many religions.
The slippers (silver in the book, ruby in the film) can be viewed as sacred objects, or relics, that assist her in her journey, providing divine protection and eventually leading her to salvation (returning home).
Finally, the revelation that the Wizard is a mere mortal, and that Dorothy had the power to return home all along, imparts a spiritual lesson often found in religious narratives: the divine or the sacred is not external, but within us."
If I was a student I could have easily expanded on these concepts (with or without GPT) and turned in a good essay.
"As a literary critic, describe how Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is a religious figure."
The divine being contained within I would think would match Buddhism pretty well.
The reference to relics is too vague to pin down to any religion, there's probably lots of examples of it in lots of religions. If I had to defend it off the top if my head I'd compare the Ruby slippers to the "holy moly" herb Athena gives Odysseus to defend him from Circe.
If anything I think GPT went wrong saying strength is one of the virtues associated with the Lion. It would be much easier to focus on courage and say he needs to learn to be like a brave apostle who says things like "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me:"
My point wasn't that this essay was particularly good, necessarily, only that it was was good enough for undergraduate work.
This isn't a field like engineering where there are objective right and wrong answers and anyone dies if you pass the students who are not so great at writing essays on literature.
Depending on the assignment you aren't necessarily expected to read anyone else's take on a book and you aren't expected to make sure you are saying something that hasn't been said before or anything like that.
You are simply expected to analyze the book and offer an interpretation.
And it's not like that's the only way to use the AI. With a few minutes of effort, I just got CHATGPT to write an essay using "post-colonial theory" to interpret the Wizard of Oz, which was pretty interesting.
Also big chance to get a C or a D when you came up with a "novel" approach that the shitty and boring book is actually shitty and boring.
Hell no school was there to stop making your own interpetations different than the official one.
Damn, even on the fucking retarded drawing lesseons (where probably half of stuff was drawn by parents) the teachers would deduct points for any individual style.
I was thinking of getting an MBA, but does it even get any better for "adults"? Arent you just tought to repeat some schematics, which often are bullshit.
Doesn't the next coming of Christ involve Rapture and Armageddon, if you take the people who believe in him seriously, which I wouldn't recommend?
And for that matter, aren't the people who believe in Christ all living in a delusional bubble inside a hermetically sealed reality denying echo chamber of over-promised and under-delivered miracles, which has been going on for thousands of years?
Can you name any AI companies who are doing anything as outrageous as declaring crackers are flesh and wine is blood, and that eating them will save your eternal soul (while calling for refusing to save the souls of anyone who supports gay marriage or abortion), and who even invented a special word "Transubstantiation" that tries to explain why you shouldn't trust your own lying eyes, and instead unquestioningly believe their unsubstantiated unscientific easily disproven claptrap, dogma, and brutally violent fairy tales?
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3764086-same-sex...
>Conservative Catholic bishops had called for the church not to offer communion to Biden or other pro-abortion rights politicians, but, in November of last year, the USCCB signaled an end to the debate by issuing a document on communion without mentioning the president or other politicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
>Transubstantiation (Latin: transubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ". This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered". In this teaching, the notions of "substance" and "transubstantiation" are not linked with any particular theory of metaphysics.
At least the AI echo chamber isn't literally over-promising salvation and eternal life like religion has for millinia, and hasn't been perpetuated by governments and wars and crusades and inquisition for thousands of years, like religion inflicts on society.
AI has got a LONG LONG way to go and a shitload more people to torture and kill before it sinks to the level of religion and promises of the second coming of Christ, and it's already delivering a hell of a lot more useful tangible benefits than any religion ever did or ever will.
Crypto was a great promise when it was invented and one can make the argument that it could have so many real world uses but it failed to live upto that expectation and one of the reasons is that it was over hyped way too quickly and ultimately became a tool for get rich quick, speculation, scams, dark web payments etc.
AI is already much better with its use BUT the hype is dangerous and we need to be careful. I see a lot of people starting "X-GPT.com" apps and touting 10K MRR in 2 months and what not. THis is what worries me. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is starting yet another AI tool. It can't be because they are so excited. It is because they see it as the new Crypto to get rich quick.
Overall, I think that AI is the new Crypto unfortunately not because it has no real world application (it does and is lot better than crypto) but because of the hype and everyone trying to cash in on it.
I’ve also recently been involved in designing a DevOps /Docker deployment pipeline for a customer. They use Java and I haven’t used Java in decades.
Before I would have just done my POC using a Python or Node container and rely on the fact that they knew Java well enough to get the concepts. But I used Java and started the chain of questions “answer all question based on talking to someone who doesn’t know Java. Explain everything step by step.”
In both cases, ChatGPT will usually get me 99% there. But I have to keep trying things and giving it the error messages and iterating.
Of course there is the hallucination issue.
On the other hand, I’ve done a lot of work professionally with old school chatbots integrated with web pages and call centers where the only intelligent component is that we could parse out parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc) and only search on those.
I would never recommend putting an LLM style chatbot in front of a customer. When I work with customers - especially in the government - the questions and answers are heavily vetted before being put in production.
They would never take a chance that either the customer could jailbreak the chatbot and have it say something and trigger a political argument about “bias” or that it would give incorrect information about a government benefit.
It seems to give answers that are 100% incorrect and when told so says "of course you're right, here is the right answer". The only stuff I'd use it for is if I already know exactly how to write the script and I'm just using it to type it for me quickly because I don't remember if aws_instance is the correct spelling or aws-instance in terraform...
But with code, it’s easy enough to prove correctness just by running it.
That being said, the one bug I find consistently with ChatGPT is that with the AWS APIs, all list type methods pagínate and you have to account for that. Python/boto3 have built in paginators and it doesn’t.
This an insidious bug because things will work correctly in a dev account with only few resources. But will fail in hard to debug ways in production.
What’s even worse is that ChatGPT “knows” the pattern and will correct itself once you say something like
“This won’t work with more than 50 roles/ec2 instances, etc”
I may not know always know the correct API or CloudFormation/CDK/Terraform syntax. But if it gets it wrong, I can read the docs and correct it.
Providing sources doesn’t usually help. ChatGPT consistently makes up sources.
Certainly with code the proof is in the pudding, but most recently my problem was "I need to create AWS monitors in Datadog to alert when a region is down." ChatGPT was hopeless but bard was able to point me to the exact doc explaining how to set it up.
You realize it’s still here, adoption is increasing, utility is increasing, etc
Just because it’s not a hype cycle does not mean it’s dead or even close to dead.
Genuinely curious. Where ? Remember it's been 15 years already. Few anecdotal examples are not good enough.
They gonna ruin even this technology with their hype marketing bullshit.
The issue I have with all the hype is not the technology itself, it will stay in one form or the other as a better interface for generalized instruction communications, but rather the scams and frauds that come with it.
Empty marketing promises where everybody advanced enough realizes that it cannot be true, and as a concept GPT is just throwing more averaged neurons to the problem instead of training more specialized expert transformers for multiple knowledge categories. Anybody remember IBM watson?
Why I always say that I don't do AI work is because people tend to think that sensorics (and neural nets that reduce a min/max problem space) already is AI. And I think it isn't. AI is where the bayesian approach is the bare minimum to deal with strategical decision making processes.
(Which probably makes this comment go to hell with downvotes but who cares :D)
I don't even start talking to it without the first instruction being "answer all following questions in the shortest form possible"
This cuts out 90% of the useless output such models generate.
Meanwhile, there are tons of applications you use everyday (and have for YEARS) using “AI”/ML for document search, text suggestion, NLP/NLU, intent recognition, STT/TTS, image similarity/classification/search and a myriad of other tasks. LLMs have sucked all of the oxygen out of the room and there are tons of “AI” companies/“engineers” now who have never even heard of any of these and are doing all kinds of bizarre (wrong) things to wedge these tasks into LLMs.
I cringe when I see people all of a sudden jumping on the “AI” hype train thinking an LLM (or even the ML approaches I listed) is a universal solution to everything. They are interesting and have use cases but please stop.
I wonder if this is a regional thing, because traveling between the US Northeast and West coast I've found entirely the opposite.
I've had non-technical friends reach out to me in a panic worried that AI will disrupt humanity in just a few years, and even my 90-year non-technical grandmother recently remarked about her fears about what AI would bring in the next 5 years.
And among technical people: ever since I posted getting an AI related role my linked in I've been bombarded with old acquaintances trying to get ahead of the AI boom.
The funny thing is that I personally think that "AI" is useful but wildly over hyped right now. I do think it has some uses, but they aren't going to change the world in any fundamental way (but hey, if I'm wrong at least I'm in the right field).
This stuff can already do impressive things and its only getting better.
Douglas Hofstadter and Geoffrey Hinton both think that we are on the path to humans eventually being surpassed.
I would urge everyone to hold back their instinctive reaction to the usual SV hype and go and try GPT-4,Claude+, Mid Journey, RunwayML for a few weeks and come to their own conclusions.
One thing I will say is that it is a decent editor. If you feed it a document, it will produce pretty good suggestions about improvements etc.
Fair.
I'm definitely big on where it will be in the future (Iain M. Banks quote about Minds being the next thing to gods and on the other side), but there are a lot of grifters who are easy to spot with the following thought experiment:
If ChatGPT could actually, to use an example I've seen, "write a best selling novel", why is OpenAI selling you access to the API instead of writing all those books and selling them directly?
The grifters say things like "buy my guide to learn how to use ChatGPT to write a book for you", overselling the capabilities of ChatGPT by a large margin.
Anytime someone says "buy my guide to becoming rich", that should set off warning signs. I've only heard it being true once ever, but even that might just be a case of a random dice roll we wouldn't have heard about if it had lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual
That said, one obvious difference between OpenAI and Intel is that OpenAI has full control of both the model and all the hardware the model is running on.
It's supposed to be the other way around.
Wikipedia on Hinton:
>Hinton received the 2018 Turing Award (often referred to as the "Nobel Prize of Computing"), together with Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, for their work on deep learning. They are sometimes referred to as the "Godfathers of AI" and "Godfathers of Deep Learning"
Is there anyone at the Turing Award for AI level who's not impressed I wonder?
The story of 2023 is the CEO or another C-level boss rushing to their ML team and excitedly telling them to scrap all their plans because they need to integrate ChatGPT AI "yesterday", while the ML team roll their eyes and laugh behind his back.
I'm sure it happened to you too.
We're still waiting ...
Besides the science behind it, currently it feels like the same hype as crypto a couple years before.
Could this perhaps be a you issue? How do you feel when you think about people changing from microservice architecture to blockchain to crypto and now to language models?
That being said, I can understand why people dislike it, same way that my grandparents only use cash, they don't trust bank cards. Imagine if we still only used cash?
Electronic money, instead of paper or coins, is there to stay. However, bitcoin is a very poor implementation of this. The mining alone has contributed significantly to the earth's yearly electricity consumption.
There are tons of legitimate use cases. However, most of them aren’t immediately apparent to affluent people in the United States as it solves problems most of them don’t have.
Are you implying that you cannot buy a car on a weekend in the US?
If you Google, you’ll see that not only can you buy a car on the weekend, but there are articles from insurance companies on adding car insurance, articles about whether it is better to buy on a week day or weekend, and even articles on buying on a 3-day holiday weekend!
the beautiful thing about accounting and trade is that cash flow doesn't have to coincide with the transaction.
I'm sure there's some niche edge cases I'm missing, but where the 'post cash'/bank cards world has real advantages, how would cryptocurrency improve any normal persons day to day? I see no real advantage, it all seems more "you could also do this with crypto" - except maybe not as well/fast/cheaply/securely?
FWIW I don't hate crypto at all, I just can't see it becoming 'the thing'. AI I can definitely see having a place (already). I find ChatGPT insanely useful for some things.
> How would cryptocurrency improve any normal persons day to day?
I see your point, but I can think of at least a few situations:
1. Global transactions with lower fees
2. Remittance, if you're working abroad etc, no more WesternUnion fees
3. Alternative to cash for previously cash transactions (less chance of being mugged etc)
There are definitely arguments for it, but anything you can do with it you can do without it, so it doesn't invent new use cases really, but I find the arguments against it are never based on pragmatism and logic, but on emotion and bias.
Crypto's only true significant/impactful use case in finance is money laundering and facilitation of other types of crime.
Digital event tickets could be sold directly from the venue to the attendee without any of the hassle of TM. Tickets that are non-fungible (ie an assigned seat at an event) can be represented with NFTs. Fungible tickets (ie no assigned seats, maybe access to any event within a period) can be simply tokenized.
That isn't a use case that exists now, and because of the toxic association that the term "NFT" has, it probably won't exist. It's a shame though, because the technology exists, and works better than existing options.
I have bought assigned seat tickets online direct from venues without TM nor NFTs, worked fine.
I have also bought tickets to exhibitions (no seats nor assigned time) direct from venues online without TM nor NFTs, worked fine.
Seems that the only problem is TM and you won't make them go way with NFTs.
There is no fundamental difference if you swap the TM brand for another. By using an NFT-based solution, the middleman can be cut out entirely, while maintaining feature parity, and without introducing extra burden on venues. An OTS Free Software application can expose the same functionality to venues without needing to maintain any infrastructure, and without dealing with TM.
The Bitcoin paper was published in 2008. It’s been almost 15 years now - plus all of the advantages that you have with modern development practices that were unavailable in the early 2000s - and yet still nobody uses blockchain at scale for this use case.
If this worked better than existing options at a lower cost, then businesses would be rushing to adopt it.
The reasons for NFTs not being used for this use-case are way more nuanced then "it should have found success in the exact same number of years as selling tickets on the web".
And venues could do that (they’re not limited to selling tickets via Ticketmaster), but then they have to maintain technical and operational expertise which is a distraction.
Sounds like you've spotted a business opportunity!
While some thing might work, it doesn’t imply that it is practical.
You may not have meant it but it sounds like an argument made in bad faith. Cash has real world application and can be used anywhere. Not trusting bank card is a choice but the alternative can be used anywhere which is cash.
Crypto at best is used for get rich quick schemes, scams, dark web payments, ransom demands etc. You said buying pizza with bitcoin. Where ? Is it an anecdote ?
To unpack this:
1. Crypto at best is used for get rich quick schemes, scams, dark web payments, ransom demands etc.
I think this is the bad faith in this discussion. Cash is also best for scams, crime, ransom demands etc. Knives are used to stab people, so should we limit cutlery to spnorkfs?
2. You said buying pizza with bitcoin. Where ? Is it an anecdote ?
https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/22/celeb...
I absolutely do not believe this to be the case. For starters the average person probably isn’t even aware, but the vast majority of folks I’ve seen use it have found it super interesting for like a week then dropped it because it wasn’t actually more helpful/better than the previously available tools.
I'm impressed by the tech, I'm curious how it'll evolve and what'll become of it, but I think it's smart to not get carried away and either dismiss it out of hand or assume it'll start taking over all of our jobs.
My family who are mostly non-technical have heard of ChatGPT but couldn't tell you what it is or does.
In tech I see a wide spectrum of skepticism, with many people using it well and getting a lot of value out of it, and many remaining skeptical or having not found a good way to integrate it into their workflow yet.
This is obviously not true. There was a lot of skepticism within the tech world but also a LOT of hype and hubris, even coming from some of the most important (even if not most credible) voices in the industry like Andreessen.
> of the people outside tech, it was only the people who were into crypto (etc) who are into AI.
I hoped this would be clear, especially given that the next paragraph talks about my thoughts on people in tech. Apologies if it wasn't clear enough.
A week after ChatGPT was out and plenty of people were already using it for writing code, emails, and plenty of other tasks. It would be weird to argue that AI is not going to have a massive impact at many levels.
Now there are plenty of challenges to overcome of course, but I have no doubts that something that useful on day one is going to have a big impact once we really understand how to integrate it to various products.
There WILL be job losses but it's not going to be the kind of people who hang out on HN. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't have an AI taking orders at the drive through, handling customer service calls / tech support, etc. Any job that consists mostly of having the same simple, repetitive conversations is going to eventually be cheaper to have a computer do.
Same thing is happening with “AI”. I think it’s not a fad but at the same time it is.
In the company I work for, in the media sector, there’s clear and direct use of LLMs (it’s already being done, and yes it will mean quite a few people will lose their jobs, despite many HNers saying that it won’t happen), but with all the hype they want to get some sort of “AI” everywhere and the most ridiculous ideas are being POC’ed.
>e best of tulips cost upwards of $1 million in today’s money (but with many bulbs trading in the $50,000–$150,000 range
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutch_tulip_bulb_market...
The stable coins are an issue but stable coins aren't a necessity for btc transactions, they're a utility for traders. Btc's biggest danger is its price volatility. As it increases in value and market cap it will become more valuable to large players who will in turn be motivated to protect its integrity.
In practice, dedollarisarion has been about shifting to other major national currencies, like the yuan. Bitcoin doesn’t really feature.
If btc replaces 1% of fx it's doing $50B/day of transactions. Market cap of btc is only about $600M, so 100x btc is not crazy.
Is a p2p transaction system with an auditable record attractive to 1% of fx transaction parties? Seems reasonable, especially when corrupt states are a counterparty.
how does the integrity of your counterparty to a transaction affect the currency or medium of exchange you agree to?
> a) accept their local currency? where? what then? what will it be worth by the time we exchange it? > b) take btc. transaction registers publicly on the blockchain. smart contracts can execute if desired, e.g. when payment x is received to address y initiate a sequence that starts delivery. currency risk is now in btc and that can be instantly mitigated by converting to your chosen currency, as the btc market is liquid. > c) require counterparty to pay in your currency, which means they pay exchange fees, increasing their costs.
Isn't it $600000M ?
Same for developed countries, though on a small scale.
Currently, nobody is talking about ChatGPT more than the crypto/NFT hustlers who now need a new angle.
Most of the actual techies in my circles, as in: practicing software engineer for 20 years kind of people, looked at it, maybe tried it out of curiosity, and went back to work.
The people who are really into it are the same people who were really into SEO, and then leadgen marketing, briefly online poker, and then blockchain/crypto, and then NFTs: the eternal hustlers who just look for the next hype train and ride it until the next train enters the station...
The interesting difference with AI / LLMs is that for whatever reason, the big companies have fallen under the spell, and they're all trying to cram generative AI into all their products now. I work at one of these companies and it's bizarre how they've turned the huge ship on a dime and are now trying to AI All The Things.
Citation needed.
I put it in the same bucket as deep CNNs - very good for specific tasks, but ultimately their lasting impact will be something trivial and faily non-world-changing like being able to search your photo collection in a slightly more clever way.
My moment was when I realized if you ask ChatGPT a question about itself, like how ChatGPT works, you are not receiving an authoritative or 1st person kind of answer, the way everyone assumes. You are getting a rehash of press releases from a text autocomplete engine. Everyone when they interact with it intuitively feels they are receiving an authentic, slightly flawed, interaction with intelligence, but it's just PT Barnum with a text completion feature. Bravo.
That’s how most human beings work as well. Ask someone about what India or Thailand is like, and even if they’ve never been there, they’ll be happy to give you a rehash of stories, pictures, and videos they saw about India or Thailand. They might make up totally wrong facts as well, just like ChatGPT.
But soon after they realized it wasn't as useful for these tasks as initially thought. Interestingly, a lot people started to believe that the tool had been limited on purpose, where in fact they were just becoming a bit more objective.
That being said, it's better than crypto and there are applications (although maybe not life changing). The bar is low though.
Same, and they are using it. Tech tends to look at the exception cases or try to use it for exact answer types of things. But non-tech are happily using it as they would Google to come up with ideas for parties and events, write the mundane emails many people have to send, etc... I've been using it to bounce ideas off of and build things like marketing plans. Basically dynamic templates. The challenge right now is prompt engineering.
To their credit, they said, "wtf would we want to do that?!"
This feels like a common pattern; a few years back many of my non-tech friends believed self-driving cars were coming imminently, whereas ~no-one working in tech believed that.
Company execs sure did. "Autonomous vehicles" is the mirage that Uber, Waymo and others dangled in front of investors and press for years. Can't blame the public for not figuring out that it was a fig leaf to paper over their eye-watering losses.
Upton Sinclair probably applies too:
> it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it
If you're Uber leadership, well, you're strongly incentivised to believe that there is _some_ way out, even if that way out might seem pretty implausible to a dispassionate observer.
Of course, one tends to be optimistic of these things when they work on them.
5 years ago I was hearing 10-20 years. This was from people who were connected and knowledgeable in the industry. Now the same people are singing a different tune.
Maybe in 20 years from now, but it's looking pretty impossible in the next 5-10 years.
The issue is that misestimation of a few key factors and overestimation of our current capabilities. If we already have the tech for self driving cars, maybe it will only take 10 years.
Assuming this something computers do quite well (wrong assumption, but it seemed reasonable at the time), we already have vehicles that can navigate themselves (we do), and we're only somewhat recently getting to the point that cars are sophisticated computers (mostly true, although computer control of car isn't something new.
There have been lots of ECUs for sometime, but the capabilities have really exploded. Maybe we just haven't gotten around to do self driving and the tools are in our hands right now!
When you understand how the auto industry works, 10 years is a relatively short timespan, that will result in ~2-5ish major design iterations. If you don't have the feature presently in the pipeline, the clock is really ticking, assuming it's new technology.
To deliver on the 10 year deadline, you will only have a couple years to be almost completely ready. 10 years is not "who knows", it's a bold prediction that implies the final product is imminent. People in tech didn't know what the fuck was going on, thinking we'd have taught the cars to drive and got the tech figured out in 5-7 years. It was loony toons.
Many very smart people I know, at least one of them inside the industry, seemed extremely confident of this. Things look different now.
In other words, the tech is real and amazing, but it doesn't seem as immediately useful in the short term as some people expect.
It's just cargo culting and wishful thinking. People staring into the magic mirror, hoping it will clone their desires.
The phrase cargo culting or some meaningful equivalent should make a come back. Even after the 'great youtubening' of technical knowledge, it is easy to find people stuck in habituated imitation of tech skills and tech talk.
I love that people are interested, but cargo culting is no good water to drink from.
Which part of the industry are you working in?
I work for Google and hear a lot of talk about LLMs from my serious colleagues.
LLMs don't know what's right automagically, a model fine tuned by a hedge fund is definitely better than just an LLM's hallucinating something
My take is that, for most non-tech people, this is their first experience directing a computer to perform a precise task - ie programming. They're accustomed to using applications, not having a hand in making them. Maybe they've used Excel before and felt a bit of this power. But ChatGPT allows them to dream up a novel idea and get the computer to execute it - something that feels like magic to non-tech folks but is rather pedestrian for most of us in tech.
It's actively solving problems for people and saving time / creating efficiency. That has value and economic utility.
I honestly don't get what a lot of the cynics in this thread and their "highly technical/IT friends" are missing.
But does it enhance the end product? Does it improve upon the work of already competent developers? Does it actually solve the real problems that software engineers face? Highly debatable. It certainly makes cranking out code more "efficient" - but anyone who's every created software knows that cranking out lines of code is a terrible metric for success. Poor quality code has less than zero value, it's a liability. As the prevalence of bot-generated code goes up, it will place an increasingly high burden on actual professionals to clean up the mess.
It is quite a stretch to say that lay people can effortlessly write application only with AI whatever it is copilot or chatgpt.
You still have to know a lot of things to build simple crud to store data about stamp collection.
LLMs are not changing that.
But well over a decade ago, we had high-level frameworks for translating "models" into all the gritty details of a crud app. Model description goes in. API endpoints, database migrations, admin UI, all auto-generated. I even developed something like it based on Django 0.96 (now abandoned).
It's not a stretch of the imagination to generate your model.py with model.txt containing the problem description in plain text.
My experience with every one of them is that getting the model to the point where it will generate something useful is more work than just writing the useful part myself.
Your second point re: how model-driven code generation can be a dead-end... I totally agree. I didn't say it was a good idea! But it was motivated by a real need: generating lots of web apps in a particular domain.
I keep seeing this take and it doesn't make any sense to me. Some tech has obvious utility and some doesn't.
For example, I knew internet (web, email) were valuable when I discovered them because accessing information and communicating with people were already things I did - the internet unequivocally made them faster and easier and often cheaper.
chatGPT / bard gave me a similar vibe - I use them to brain storm/shape ideas, and as mentioned elsewhere, they do a great job of tasks like drafting a job ad. These are things people already do and this tech just makes it better. So people will use it.
In contrast, I "get" why people were excited by crypto but I don't personally know anyone whose payment/banking experience is improved by it. As an American for example there was nothing tangible Bitcoin made easier vs my bank account and visa. So it was always less "obvious" that it was going to be a valuable thing beyond hype.
So far the only way this even comes close to happening is by wrapping centralised systems around it (e.g., exchanges), but that comes with a whole set of different drawbacks. This does not feel like a scenario that is possible, let alone likely.
That's exactly because you live in a first world country with a reliable banking system.
I'm sure pretty much every accountant in the world got up and went to work that day exactly like they'd been doing all of their career. It probably didn't feel different for that many of them. Most of them had probably never used a computer then, and a lot of them probably didn't feel any particular need to, at least until they tried it. There were probably more than a few who were near the end of the career managed to keep doing their job the old way for another half or whole decade or so, because even when the future moves fast it's never evenly distributed.
There were probably also more than a few who saw VisiCalc and bought an Apple II to start doing their own books and ended up regretting it. I don't know where we are and how things will pan out, but I think there's a parallel.
1980s was a different world. Today, the distribution that BigTech has, enabled by this thing called the Internet, changes the dynamic completely.
Given the investment, I believe LLMs will change some of the industries within 5 years, simply because it is a new but natural way to interact with Computers; and Google/Apple already put an Internet-connected Computer in everyone's hands.
This LLM hype is very real and is nothing like web3 (which lacked 10x utility over web2, imo).
Mendix 2005 Outsystems 2001 Appian 2004 (no info before) Quickbase 2000 Zoho Creator 2006
~20 years ago. I agree with the idea that it’s a new cool way of interaction with systems, but I also think you trust too much in our development cycles. Five years is nothing. Companies will try and fail, try and pivot, try and barely swim for years. Few of them will arrive alive at stage 2 where the real deal starts.
If it were easy, it would hit frontpages last week, because small companies and single developers can prototype things 10-100x faster than any bigcorp.
Personally, I truly hope that this technology gets cheaper and cheaper, and that it can be run on a device the size of a pager in pocket with a pair of AirPods on. If that were my computing environment 90% of the time, I’d be thrilled.
They can already fully replace human proofreaders and content marketers. They're very close to being able to replace graphic designers, voice actors, and commercial photographers. I expect we'll see many more unsexy jobs like those being replaced within 5 years.
It's 20s, not 20's. It's sees, not see's.
ChatGPT made some waves at the end of last year. My in-laws were wanting to talk to (at) me about it at Christmas. There's plenty of awareness outside of the tech circles, but most of the discussion (both out and in of the tech world) seems to miss what LLMs actually _are_.
The reason why ChatGPT was impressive to me wasn't the "realism" of the responses... It was how quickly it could classify and chain inputs/outputs. It's super impressive tech, but like... It's not AI. As accurate as it may ever seem, it's simply not actually aware of what it's saying. "Hallucinations" is a fun term, but it's not hallucinating information, it's just guessing at the next token to write because that's all it ever does.
If it was "intelligent" it would be able to recognise a limitation in its knowledge and _not_ hallucinate information. But it can't. Because it doesn't know anything. Correct answers are just as hallucinatory as incorrect answers because it's the exact same mechanism that produces them - there's just better probabilities.
Wasn't it the plot of a sci-fi novel by Vernor Vinge or someone at least as popular?
I don't claim or believe that any LLM is actually intelligent. It just seems that we (at least on an individual basis) can also meet the criteria outlined above. I know plenty of people who are confidently incorrect and appear unwilling to learn or accept their own limitations, myself included.
In my opinion, even if we did have AGI it would still exhibit a lot of our foibles given that we'd be the only ones teaching it.
An LLM doesn't have that. It's very impressive parlour trick (and of course a lot more), but it's use is hence limited (albeit massive) to that.
Chaining and context assists resolving that to some extent, but it's a limited extent.
That's the argument anyway, that doesn't mean it's not incredibly impressive, but comparing it to human self-awareness, however small, isn't a fair comparison.
It's next token prediction, which is why it does classification so well.
"Hallucination" is a term that works well for actual intelligence - when you "know" something that isn't true, and has no path of reasoning, you might have hallucinated the base "knowledge".
But that doesn't really work for LLMs, because there's no knowledge at all. All they're doing is picking the next most likely token based on the probabilities. If you interrogate something that the training data covers thoroughly, you'll get something that is "correct", and that's to be expected because there's a lot of probabilities pointing to the "next token" being the right one... but as you get to the edge of the training data, the "next token" is less likely to be correct.
As a thought experiment, imagine that you're given a book with every possible or likely sequence of coloured circles, triangles, and squares. None of them have meaning to you, they're just colours and shapes that are in random seeming sequences, but there's a frequency to them. "Red circle, blue square, gren triangle" is a much more common sequence than "red circle, blue square, black triangle", so if someone hands you a piece of paper with "red circle, blue square", you can reasonably guess that what they want back is a green triangle.
Expand the model a bit more, and you notice that "rc bs gt" is pretty common, but if there's a yellow square a few symbols before with anything in between, then the triangle is usually black. Thus the response to the sequence "red circle, blue square" is usually "green triangle", but "black circle, yellow square, grey circle, red circle, blue square" is modified by the yellow square, and the response is "black triangle"... but you still don't know what any of these things _mean_.
When you get to a sequence that isn't covered directly by the training data, you just follow the process with the information that you _do_ have. You get "red triangle, blue square" and while you've not encountered that sequence before, "green" _usually_ comes after "red, blue", and "circle" is _usually_ grouped with "triangle, square", so a reasonable response is "green circle"... but we don't know, we're just guessing based on what we've seen.
That's the thing... the process is exactly the same whether the sequence has been seen before or not. You're not _hallucinating_ the green circle, you're just picking based on probabilities. LLMs are doing effectively this, but at massive scale with an unthinkably large dataset as training data. Because there's so much data of _humans talking to other humans_, ChatGPT has a lot of probabilities that make human-sounding responses...
It's not an easy concept to get across, but there's a fundamental difference between "knowing a thing and being able to discuss it" and "picking the next token based on the probabilities gleaned from inspecting terabytes of text, without understanding what any single token means"
But yes, it's unfortunate that when the next tokens are joined token and laid out in the form of a sentence it appears "intelligent" to people. However if you instead lay out the individual probabilities of each token instead then it'll be more obvious what ChatGPT/LLMs actually do.
I mean, it's not. It's visualizing concepts internally and then using a grammar model to turn those into speech.
First off, not everyone "visualizes" thought. Second, what do you think "using a grammar model to turn those into speech" actually consists of? Grammar is the set of rules by which sequences of words are mapped to meaning and vice-versa. But this is implemented mechanistically in terms of higher activation for some words and lower activation for other words. One such mechanism is scoring each word explicitly. Brains may avoid explicitly scoring irrelevant words, but that's just an implementation detail. All such mechanisms are computationally equivalent.
How do you know? And more importantly, how do you prove it to others? The only way to prove it is to say: "OK, you are human, I am human, each of us know this is true for ourselves, let's be nice and assume it's true for each other as well".
> But that doesn't really work for LLMs, because there's no knowledge at all.
How do you know? I know your argument saying that the LLM "is just" guessing probabilities, but surely, if the LLM can complete the sentence "The Harry Potter book series was written by ", the knowledge is encoded in its sea of parameters and probabilities, right?
Asserting that it does not know things is pretty absurd. You're conflating "knowledge" with the "feeling" of knowing things, or the ability to introspect one's knowledge and thoughts.
> As a thought experiment, imagine that you're given a book with every possible or likely sequence of coloured circles, triangles, and squares.
I'd argue thought experiments are pretty useless here. The smaller models are quantitatively different from the larger models, at least from a functional perspective. GPT with hundreds of parameters may be very similar to the one you're describing in your thought experiment, but it's well known that GPT models with billions of parameters have emergent properties that make them exhibit much more human-like behavior.
Does your thought experiment scale to hundreds of thousands of tokens, and billions of parameters?
Also, as with the Chinese Room argument, the problem is that you're asserting the computer, the GPU, the bare metal does not understand anything. Just like how our brain cells don't understand anything either. It's _humans_ that are intelligent, it's _humans_ that feel and know things. Your thought experiment would have the human _emulate_ the bare metal layer, but nobody said that layer was intelligent in the first place. Intelligence is a property of the _whole system_ (whether humans or GPT), and apparently once you get enough "neurons" the behavior is somewhat emergent. The fact that you can reductively break down GPT and show that each individual component is not intelligent does not imply the whole system is not intelligent -- you can similarly reductively break down the brain into neurons, cells, even atoms, and they aren't intelligent at all. We don't even know where our intelligence resides, and it's one of the greatest mysteries.
Imagine trying to convince an alien species that humans are actually intelligent and sentient. Aliens opens a human brain and looks inside: "Yeah I know these. Cells. They're just little biological machines optimized for reproduction. You say humans are intelligent? But your brains are just cleverly organized cells that handles electric signals. I don't see anything intelligent about that. Unlike us, we have silicon-based biology, which is _obviously_ intelligent."
You sound like that alien.
ChatGPT isn’t even a bullshitter when it hallucinates – it simply does not know when to stop. It has no conceptual model that guides its output. It parrots words but does not know things.
The discussion is whether LLMs have "knowledge, understanding, and reasoning ability" like humans do.
Your reply suggests that a bullshitter has the same cognitive abilities as an LLM, which seems to validate that LLMs are on-par with some humans. The claim that "it simply does not know when to stop" is wrong (it does stop, of course, it has a token limit -- human bullshitters don't). The claim that "It has no conceptual model that guides its output." is just an assertion. "It parrots words but does not know things." is just begging the question.
Lots of assertions without back up. Thanks for your opinion, I guess?
In humans “hallucination” means observing false inputs. In GTP it means creating false outputs.
Completely different with massively different connotations.
GPT isn't making true or false outputs. It's just making outputs. The truthiness or falseness of any output is irrelevant because it has no concept of true or false. We're assigning those values to the outputs ourselves, but like... it doesn't know the difference.
It's like blaming a die for a high or a low roll - it's just doing rolls. It has no knowledge of a good or a bad roll. GPT is like a Rube Goldberg machine for rolling dice that's _more likely_ to roll the number that you want, but really it's just rolling dice.
Whenever a human speaks, it's just vibrations of wave molecules, triggered by the mouth and throat, which in turn are controlled by electric signals in the human's neural network. Those neurons, they just make muscles move. They don't have any concept of true of false. At least nobody has found a "true of false" neuron in the brain.
Yeah, one way to conceive of the issue is that GPT doesn't know when to shut up. Intuitively, you can kind of understand how this might be the case: the training data reflects when someone did produce output, not when they didn't, which is going to bias strongly toward producing confident output.
A lot of the conversation about GPT hallucinations has felt like an extended rehash of the conversations we've been having out the difference between plausible and accurate machine translations since like, 2016ish.
How do you know that? You can only observe the output of the humans (other than yourself).
This experience is available to you and is well documented.
How do you know that the LLM is not observing false inputs but creating false outputs? Would an LLM which tells you very convincingly about how it obtained a false information make you change your mind?
> This experience is available to you and is well documented.
You are misunderstanding what I'm asking. Sure, drug induced hallucinations in humans is very well documented. What I'm asking if this purported difference between "hallucinating on the inputs" vs "creating false outputs" is meaningful distinction.
I feel like if you have any belief in philosophy then LLMs can only be interpreted as a parlour trick (on steroids). Perhaps we are fanciful in believing we are something greater than LLMs but there is the idea that we respond using rhetoric based on trying to find reason within in what we have learned and observed. From my primitive understanding, LLMs rhetoric and reasoning is entirely implied based on an effectively (compared to the limitations of human capacity to store information) infinite amount of knowledge they've consumed.
I think if LLMs were equivalent to human thinking then we'd all be a hell of a lot stupider, given our lack of "infinite" knowledge compared to LLMs.
You're going to have to explain which part of philosophy you mean, because what came after this doesn't follow from that premise at all. It's like saying a Chinese Room is fundamentally different from a "real" solution even though nobody can tell the difference. That's not a "belief in philosophy", that's human exceptionalism and perhaps a belief in the soul.
> that's human exceptionalism and perhaps a belief in the soul.
I would also argue that LLMs are not proven to be equivalent to what's going on in our minds. Is it really "human exceptionalism" to state that LLMs are not yet and perhaps never will be what we are? I feel like from their construction it is somewhat evident that there are differences, since we don't raise humans the same way we raise LLMs. In terms of CPU years babies require significantly less time to train.
It doesn't matter if the output is correct or not, the process for producing it is identical, and the model has the exact same amount of knowledge about what it's saying... which is to say "none".
This isn't a case of "it's intelligent, but it gets muddled up sometimes". It's more of the case that it's _always_ muddled up, but it's accidentally correct a lot of the time.
I don't see how this differs from a human earnestly holding a mistaken belief.
Of course it has text input, but if you consider that to be equivalent to sensory perception (which I'd be open to) then a hallucination would mean to act as if something is in the text input when it really isn't, which is not how people use the term.
You could also consider all the input it got during training as its sensory perception (also arguable IMHO), but then a proper hallucination would entail some mistaken classification of the input resulting in incorrect training, which is also not really what's going on I think.
Confabulation is a much more accurate term indeed, going by the first paragraph of wikipedia.
Conflating intelligence and awareness seems to me the biggest confusion around this topic.
When non-technical people ask me about it, I ask them to consider three questions:
- is alive?
- thinks?
- can speak (and understand)?
A plant, microbe, primitive animals... are alive, don't think, can't speak.
A dog, a monkey... are alive, think, can't speak.
A human is alive, thinks, can speak.
These things aren't alive, think, can speak.
I know some of the above will be controversial, but clicks for most people, that agree: if you have a dog, you know what I mean whith "a dog thinks". Not with words, but they're capable intricate reasoning and strategies.
Intelligence can be mechanical, the same as force. For a man from the ancient times, the concept of an engine would have been weird. Only live beings were thought to move on their own. When a physical process manifested complex behaviour, they said that a spirit was behind it.
Intelligence doesn't need awareness. You can have disembodied pieces of intelligence. That's what Google, Facebook, etc. have been doing for a long time. They're AI companies.
It doesn't help with the confusion that speaking is a harder condition than thinking and thinking seems to be harder than being alive: "these things aren't alive so they can't think" but they speak, so...
The problem is that LLMs aren't alive, and they _don't think_. The speaking is arguable.
They can't speak English like a human, but they both can understand a good deal of English, and they both can speak in their own ways (and understand the speaking of others).
I think the key thing about these LLMs is that they upend the notion that speaking requires thinking/understanding/intelligence.
They can "speak", if you mean emit coherent sentences and paragraphs, really well. But there is no understanding of anything, nor thinking, nor what most people would understand as intelligence behind that speaking.
I think that is probably new. I can't think of anything that could speak on this level, and yet be completely and obviously (if you give it like, an hour of back and forth conversation) devoid of intelligence or thinking.
I think that's what makes people have fantastical notions about how intelligent or useful LLMs are. We're conditioned by the entirety of human history to equate such high-quality "speech" with intelligence.
Now we've developed a slime mold that can write novels. But I think human society will adapt quickly, and recalibrate that association.
It's not devoid of intelligence or thinking. You're just using "what I'm doing right now" as the definition of intelligence and thinking. It isn't alive so it can't be the same. You are noticing that its intelligence is not centralized in the same way as your own mind.
But that's not the same as saying it's dumb. Try an operational definition that involves language and avoid vague criteria that try to judge internal states. Your dog might understand some words, associate them to the current situation and react, but can't understand a phrase.
These things can analyze the syntax of a phrase, can follow complex instructions, can do what you tell them to do. How is that not "understanding"?
If that isn't intelligence for you, I don't know what else to say.
My sister is not technically minded. She has used chatgpt to create a request for permit for a backyard deck to city Hall, a letter to her boss requesting attendance to a conference, and her performance reviews.
Another non techie and I use chatgpt to help us learn French and music theory.
My mother in law uses it to create funny rhyming stories for kids.
Meanwhile the techie friends of mine are... Completely ignoring it. My two best friends are vmware senior architect and a Java developer / tech manager, and I've been urging them for months to try it.
So I personally live in a completely opposite situation to that which you describe :-). Techie are skeptical of the toy, and endlessly discuss it's limitations and impact. Non Techies are just using it as a tool.
We must have met very different humans. Are there humans that do that this? Absolutely! Are they in the majority? Absolutely not. Now if you change that framing to "teachers" then I think on average you are going to get more people like that but I've heard many many people say things with complete confidence/certainty that was absolutely wrong. Then again, I've had teachers that have made predictions/statements that they state as facts so I don't know. Dunning-Kruger can account for part of it but still.
I could not disagree more.
ChatGPT is patient. That's a rare quality in humans and teachers.
ChatGPT will willingly explore. That's also a rare quality in teachers.
ChatGPT is detailed and structured, and has instant access to enormous amount of data and background.
I will grant you that there are domains of knowledge and questions where it's great, and where it'll lie to you through your teeth. But as a patient, detailed, willing, knowledgeable tutor in basic/well-covered areas, it's virtually unparalleled. I'm a hungry learner and have had large number of teachers, tutors and mentors through several continents, countries, societies and educational paradigms; and only the very very top are as good - and I've actually been the lucky one. My wife and my sister, for example, based on their accounts, simply never had a teacher/tutor as good as ChatGPT :-<
I try hard to not be snarky or sarcastic on HN; it doesn't contribute to positive, friendly, productive conversation... but come ON :->
Average human is unlikely to admit to themselves or others when they don't know something. We are famous for it. We love our opinions, and we conflate them as facts. It doesn't even imply malice or anything - have you ever asked for directions from somebody who doesn't know the answer? They'll still TRY :->. Even the smartest people around me will frequently present their ad-hoc opinions as facts. Heck, on HN alone, people will opine on matters of law and science and many things which are reasonably factual.
Don't get me wrong, LLM's hallucinating and being utterly unable to signal when they do is BAD; it makes them very different from most other software we've ever built; and it needs to be addressed; but as to this line of conversation specifically, it makes them (without any philosophical or "conscience of machine" implications) extremely human-like :-)
(similarly, not to say there aren't any humans who are humble and/or explicit about their limitations; but it's far, far from average)
ChatGPT is a wonderful tool to improve your knowledge of a given language (at least for the ones having a lot of data on the web, I tested only French, German and English). You paste a mostly good text, you get back a very good one and sometimes it provides you with a description of your errors, why and what it restructured.
At the same time, when asked simple, clear and basic questions, on topics where there are myriad of resources, that agree with each other, it's very very very useful.
I'm not learning either French nor Music theory solely from ChatGPT of course; I use it to supplement and explore. As such, it's proven to be in the top 5%+ of patient & knowledgeable tutors/instructors I've ever had (or to put it another way, my piano teachers have been WAY more wrong, WAY more often about music theory than ChatGPT - we all take risks :)
It is basically like a lubricant for my thought process.
1. Our jobs are obviously (soon) replaceable or at least massively impacted - just like all the jobs we ourselves have replaced previously. We don't like that and throw stones at it to make it go away.
2. We used to be the goto-source for all things technical, now (soon) people can just ask chatGPT and get a better answer. We don't like that and throw stones at it to make it go away.
3. We are (most of us) schooled to think that a script, a program (made by us) produces a predictable result: every letter has to be carefully placed or the whole thing comes crashing down. This AI thing doesn't work like that at all, which we don't like and etc.
4. The answers given to us by the chat bots are sometimes just "hallucinations", because the tech isn't fully mature yet. We don't like that.
More?
I am at once astonished how useful LLM can be at its best, and how horrifyingly dangerous it can be if/when overused by those who don't understand its limitations.
When the dust settles, and the consensus concludes the obvious namely that: "yes, this thing actually does possess intelligence and knowledge, on an unprecedented level with vastly greater future potential" then maybe we can concentrate on steering education and professions into directions that will make the tech controllable and even more useful, and avoid the real pitfalls and dangers that lie ahead.
As long as we're stuck on the understanding that this is "just a hallucinating, stochastic parrot" and everything else is pure hype then we're not getting the right things done I'm afraid.
Also, we're all calling it "AI" for some dumbass reason. That infects our thoughts with unwarranted credit toward the technology.
After all an artifice: (the use of) a clever trick or something intended to deceive
But the more surprising thing is that even after I explained what it could do, they weren’t even slightly impressed. “So it tells you wrong answers? Sounds utterly pointless”
I was flabbergasted. I think we do live in a bubble. I’m sure architects and surgeons have equally exciting advances in their fields that no one else cares about.
I also think the medias sensationalist phrases should be taken with a pinch of salt: “The tech everyone is talking about”, “here’s the news that got everyone buzzing. etc
I do think LLM are a significant event, but that will only be realised by building on top of it and “showing rather than telling”.
Could you tell a bit more about why this objection surprised you so much? I am often seeing this in the same tech circles that rejected the web3 craze; and I have to confess, it does sound reasonable to me. There is a recent PR opened in the MDN docs repository after MDN added the "AI explain" button, pointing out how utterly useless a AI guide is if it gives you incorrect answers and you do not have enough knowledge to catch it [0].
Although presumably very smart folks are working on it.
A few days ago some poster tried to compare denying LLM’s to being a naysayer in Gallileos time. Is this all we can do? Make references to past events and fail to evaluate the present properly?
My analysis here is that the young person in question appeared to focus only on current utility. You have not yet explained why you say it is a failed analysis of why that response may seem surprising.
Nobody can explain how you can make an LLM understand what it's saying.
I was shocked because I felt that being occasionally wrong would be a foot note, but to the person I was talking to its entire usefulness hinged on it being fully reliable.
For the capabilities we’re getting surely, the occasional wrong answer is barely a sacrifice!
People outside of tech don't necessarily think this way. So hearing that "it produces incorrect answers" is kind of a deal breaker, no?
Who is right in this case? I actually think that the LLM approach has limits that we could hit the wall of, and for that technique at least never get past the "I'm just making shit up" problem, and in fact the skeptics are quite right.
LLMs are exciting as an automatic language content generation tool, they chain words together in ways that sound like humans, and extract reasoning patterns that look like human reasoning. But they're not reasoning, it doesn't take much to trip them up in basic argumentation. But because they look like they're "thinking" some people with a tech-optimist bias get excited and just assume that the problems will resolve themselves. They could be very wrong, there could in fact be very strong limits to this approach.
... More worrisome is if LLMs because omnipresent despite having this flaw, and we just accept bullshit from computers the way we seemingly now accept complete bullshit from politicians and businessmen....
I think it's a deal-breaker for many people inside tech either :-)
It looks like it may be useful in doing grunt work in the field where you are an expert and can check and correct anything that it produces.
Where people expect it to be useful though is in providing them with information they do not already know; and the fact that you cannot trust anything it says makes it unusable for this case.
It is our responsibility as tech professionals to recognize this and explain it to laymen otherwise we're in trouble.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's really really bad that these systems are made to speak in first person, that they're often given "names", that they use human voices, and that they present authority. This is irresponsible engineering from a social and ethics POV, and our "profession" such as it is, should be held to task for it.
I think we can all agree that LLMs, as they stand today, are useless for anything apart from "creative tasks" where accuracy and facts simply don't matter. So things like writing fan fiction it is great at, but for anything meaningful it is utter tripe. No one can deny this.
"Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a 60 minutes interview, 'one Google AI program adapted on its own after it was prompted in the language of Bangladesh, which it was not trained to know'. This is obviously wrong, so does that mean Pichai was hallucinating?"
At the last second I fact-checked myself, and found that it actually wasn't Pichai who said that. Crazy how close I came to confidently spewing bullshit in a comment about how humans can also confidently spew bullshit.
Anyway, my point is- to be on par with humans, LLMs don't need to be right all of the time, only some of the time.
I don't think it's impossible for an LLM to do that but they currently don't.
It's an impressive technical feat to mimic human writing and drawing with its level of fidelity, but until it can make the leap to knowing what it's talking about - and there's no clear basis for assurance that the current vector will get us there - real-world use cases are mostly limited to replacing the some of the more boring email jobs.
Could be because they haven't actually tried it. There are a surprising amount of applications something that tells wrong answers part of the time can do.
Within tech the biggest constraint I'm seeing is a failure of our imagination on how this tech could be used, so far we've limited our interactions to that which we've been shown... chat bots, and if that's all we can imagine then this is definitely a hype cycle.
But when I speak to those outside of tech, who are not constrained to imagine what they've seen, then I see and hear much different things. It's not the second coming, it's not going to make the whole world redundant, but it is a change and for the most part non-tech people seem more eager to get there. At least, I'm surrounded by positive people who seem to hope that the most mundane aspects of our lives will be replaced by AI and will lead to some qualitative improvement of life (ignoring the cost of living crunch presently hitting most of them).
* All the techies I know have heard about and used it, and most have a healthy dose of skepticism paired with some optimism that it can be used to help solve some previously hard to solve problems. This alone, I think, makes it clear that LLM has staying power in a way that blockchain did not: obvious use cases.
* The normies in my life run the whole spectrum from "never heard of it" to "use it at least sometimes." One interesting subset are the folks who have heard a LOT about it but haven't used it. My lawyer said he had already attended panel discussions about the ethical implications of AI usage in law. I asked if he had USED ChatGPT and he said no; I had to direct him to the URL and walk him through signing up so he could see it for himself. And he's pretty tech-saavy as non-techies go.
Burying the lede, now. Here is my unpopular opinion: there is an outsized "wow factor" when you specifically use ChatGPT because of the fact that it outputs the text seemingly in real-time. It makes it look like it's thinking/talking and viscerally our minds are blown. Bing and Bard generate the response in the background and output it all at once like a search result, doesn't hit the same way.
She said she's heard a lot about it, but it all sounds like marketing hype, tabloid sensationalism, or open alarmism from people who don't seem to know what they're talking about.
She said some of her students had used ChatGPT for creating revision materials for their exams, and that they'd found it useful for that, but she found the assertion that mass unemployment is 6-12 months away 'pure speculation'.
Who in their right mind has been asserting that?
I personally think there's a number of reasons why we may be coming up on an AI plateau that we may not get out of for a long time, but that's a different matter.
I've found numerous places to use generative AI in my business. None of the use cases involve laying people off. A large amount of the use cases are adding something new to the business to help us acheive something that wouldn't have been practical if we had to pay a person to do it. The next batch of it, is preloading a humans plate so they can do a quick verification, some small edits, and then off to the customer, allowing the subject matter experts to handle a higher volumes which directly relates to revenue. The 3rd set of use cases involve helping creative employees be more creative.
Not a single use case i've evaluated (and there's a bunch) will put anyone out of work. Might give us more room to hire more people frankly. At least in my business, and I supect my business i not unusual.
It's like the paperless office. Sure eventually AI might get good enough to replace people, but we'll probably just end up hiring more people in the middle since a person with AI can do so much more revenue generating work.
In my work I've yet to find a use for NNs, but maybe for the writing of a lot of templates in one go it could be useful.
I'm guessing that most of the C-suit are already using NNs to write (and read) those kilometers of word salad.
i'm not surprised the spam industry is using ChatGPT, it does seem pretty apt to writing useless text
I think there is certainly more talk about it inside tech circles, but I feel like it's more of a generational divide than anything else.
It can write lectures, generate worksheets, come up with interesting quizzes, D&D stuff.
It's just a tool, some people will find it useful, some won't. A bit like a chainsaw.
They don’t always. This sucked the wind out of your whole argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driver-less_train_syst...
The DLR for example still has drivers, its just they are located somewhere other than the train.
(in the case of DLR, the staff on the train can take control if needed, but other networks don't have staff on every train)
For the tube, places like the victoria, jubilee, the driver doesn't actually "drive" if that makes any sense. They open the doors and hold down a button that indicates the line is clear. The driver has no real control over speed under normal circumstances.
for the tubes, the real blocker to "Driverless" trains is re-boring the tunnel to allow a walkway for evacuation.
The DLR is centrally controlled for most of the time. In the sense that there is a central operator that opens and closes the doors and tells the train to move to the next station.
the only difference is that there is no requirement for someone to hold down a button for the train to continue, the deadmans switch as it were.
Is it that remote controlled? Other systems I'm familiar with don't need a human for that.
> As we are getting into AI automates <Hardthing> when it turns out that actually <Hardthing> was largely automated already.
Oh, I fully agree with that point. You don't need AI-hype to automate a subway system, it's in many ways in the real of "classic" industrial automation.
AI looks to be great for ideation and development. But it's not there if you value a high quality output.
Agreed. I don't see this current version of AI as a calculator, but as an adaptable companion to work ideas with. The calculator side will continue to get better, but there's already so much value in the ideation side. Obvious is augmenting writing. The other I have found is in planning. If we expand to images, there's things like Firefly.
Getting an email just right is so much easier/faster now. It's increased my productivity from that one thing alone. Coding is also very helpful, and while not always 100%, it presents ideas which then I can use to get to the solution.
This is the first time I've seen a fairly straight line to a Star Trek like computer assistant at some point in the future.
It will improve the answer.
Iterating this you can get way beyond the quality of the first answer. You have full control over the quality but you have to bring something to the collaboration.
Quality is a complex thing that requires design, safeguards, process, as well as iteration. You can't design test suites or checklists with just AI, because you don't know if the AI will decide to override them because of some other instruction or signal. And how do you determine the quality of the signal anyway? The quality of input of each human varies.
It's "too adaptive" for QA. You would need a QA for the QA.
I definitely don't treat its output with full trust, but I've been pleasantly surprised that even when I give it bad or incorrect guidance (unintentionally) it has caught my mistake, corrected me, and I've learned things.
For the QA case, I suppose what you're getting at is that if it can't be fully trusted, you might get incorrect QA results -- false negatives, false positives -- I'd agree but I think you just have to find an effective way to use the tool. Perhaps the obvious way most people would want to use the tool, is not in fact the best way to use the tool.
But just because the tool isn't delivering the perfection people hope for, doesn't mean there isn't some other way to use it that still catches (some) mistakes and adds value.
This is the real world. Manufacturing. Logistics. Managing people. Building tools for streamlining one tiny part of a workflow and getting people to use them effectively.
This latest client has opened up my eyes to the fact that I've been living in a bubble. I could not be more glad, as I was beginning to suspect that OpenAI is taking over the world.
Question: Do you know about ChatGPT? If yes, have you used it?
(n = 1056 in both March and June)
March 2023
Know about it and have used it: 4.8%
Know about it but haven’t used it: 25.5%
Don’t know about it: 69.7%
June 2023
Know about it and have used it: 15.2%
Know about it but haven’t used it: 55.8%
Don’t know about it: 29.1%
The survey also suggests that awareness is higher among younger people and that usage is higher among males.
Search results at Amazon Japan and Amazon USA show that many books are being published about ChatGPT in both Japanese and English [2, 3]. Quite a few Japanese magazines have had cover stories about it recent months [4].
[1] https://markezine.jp/article/detail/42509
[2] https://www.amazon.co.jp/s?k=ChatGPT
[3] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=ChatGPT&ref=nav_bb_sb
[4] https://www.amazon.co.jp/s?k=ChatGPT&rh=n%3A13384021&__mk_ja...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/24/a-majorit...
I don't think AI is the second coming of Christ like some pretend (it is over-hyped outside of tech and somewhat under-hyped inside of tech IMHO) but it's impressive and extremely useful. I've used it many times to help point me in the right direction. I never take what it says as fact, I always "check it's work" but it often saves me considerable amounts of time by getting me on the right track and then I can refine what it gave me. I don't use it for writing "real" code (aside from maybe a few small algorithms) but I do use it to help with certain debugging tasks if I think it will be useful. Also for things like "spit me out a shell script that takes a CSV and does X, Y, Z" it's incredibly useful. These are normally 1-off tasks that I can do by hand or code if needed but ChatGPT makes it way easier.
When it comes to writing, I'm often faced with "Blank Screen Syndrome" or a similar type of feeling and so getting something on the screen that I can then edit/revise/improve/fix is a huge boon to my productivity.
Note that every "AI summer" prior to this one has produced something useful, just never all that world-changing compared to people's expectations. Most people think that if it can BS (excuse me, generate convincing text), then it can do lots of other jobs. Well, in previous AI summers, people thought that if it can play chess, or answer Jeopardy questions, it could do many other things that it turned out, it could not do (or could not do well enough).
For that matter, the ability to do math, at one time, was thought of as a sign of great intelligence. But, it turned out that computers could do math, long before they could do anything else. Our intuition about, "if it can do this, soon it will be able to do that", is not very good.
I have heard ChatGPT described as a better autosuggest, which sounds about right. It's not that autosuggest isn't useful, it can be very useful, but it's not a thing that is going to change the world, and the jobs which it will automate are neither numerous, nor very well paid even now.
If you're trying to pump that VC hype machine for $$, though, cryptocurrency is not going to work anymore, so they need something.
But this causes people to literally fail to notice that there are many things in tech that Aren't just hype. I mean literally think about it, the internet wasn't just hype, the smart phone wasn't just hype. There's millions of things that weren't just hype.
>I have heard ChatGPT described as a better autosuggest, which sounds about right. It's not that autosuggest isn't useful, it can be very useful, but it's not a thing that is going to change the world, and the jobs which it will automate are neither numerous, nor very well paid even now.
This is a poor characterization. chatGPT has the capability of answering extremely complex questions with novel answers that are completely indistinguishable from human answers. And remember much of these answers are novel, meaning that it wasn't just a copy of the answer out of nowhere.
There are of course huge problems with our ability to control chatGPT to give us the correct answers consistently but the fact that it can even do the above 50% of the time is a feat that moves the needle far beyond a mere "auto suggest". All you need to do is increase that 50% rate and suddenly it can auto suggest you out of an entire career. Cross your fingers and hope token prediction is just a technological dead end and that we can't really raise the correctness rate past 50%. In many instances of project development getting to 50% is often the hard part and getting to 100% could be easier.
Having a human in the loop doesn't mean nobody is replaced.
If I have a job that requires 20 people to respond to emails all day, I can have AI do the job with 1 person in the loop. That's 19 people replaced.
The other thing you need to think about is basically the trendline. Sure the AI requires humans in the loop now, but will it in the future? Just 1 year back a tool like chatGPT didn't exist. Now it exists. What's the next year going to bring? Most likely a tool Better than chatGPT. If "better" keeps happening every year, inevitably there will be a point where the AI doesn't need a human in the loop.
So you gave me an example where technology caused the employment of more people. I gave you an example of where technology caused the employment of less people. Does either example have anything to do with what chatGPT will do to employment? Likely not.
[0] https://villekuosmanen.medium.com/i-played-chess-against-cha...
By the way, ChatGPT, as of May of this year at least, cannot play tic-tac-toe, but it thinks it knows how: https://www.aiweirdness.com/optimum-tic-tac-toe/
I mean, I'm in "tech", and I don't anticipate it happening soon. People want something they can trust, and current solutions are nowhere near that.
Now you can hand Lorem Ipsum in for homework!
In this day and age, why is our education still based on rote regurgitation?
Not all tasks need to be 100% accurate, and, to be honest, people are not known for their trustworthiness either.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36097900
[2] https://futurism.com/neoscope/microsoft-doctors-chatgpt-pati...
[3] https://github.com/features/copilot
[4] https://www.electropages.com/blog/2023/06/researchers-demons...
To expand and to tell of a very recent story: For work I used ChatGPT to help me write a 500 line bash script to automate a bunch of stuff. It took me around 1 day versus the 5 it would have taken me if I would go the google/ddg/stack overflow route of slowly crawling through outdated content and SEO noise to find the signals.
It worked, completely!
Solely from that experience, I'm convinced that it's not just farts and kool-aid. To go one step further, even, i'de say that anybody who doesn't at least have a cursory awareness or AI is in fact the one in the "echo chamber", isolated from the possible.
It's not the do-all solution, of course, but in certain scenarios, it's quite obviously, trivially demonstrably, revolutionary.
My spouse works in early childhood education and they use ChatpGPT routinely for low-value boilerplate stuff (social media posts that no one reads, etc).
A relative is in commercial real-estate management, and they also use ChatGPT routinely (in fact they started using it before I did).
So I don't think it's an echo chamber.
Everything from writing emails to suppliers, correcting grammar, responding to customers, brainstorming new product ideas, explaining contracts etc.
Where as for me I can't find a use for it. Even as a coding assistant I find that I spent more time trying to understand/correct what it did than if I just wrote it myself.
Lately I've been using it quite a bit for Arduino on a ESP32 board, I had toyed around with Arduino previously but since I got this board for a small hobby project it's been great to ask ChatGPT to generate some examples of the kind of data I want to read from a few sensors. Even when it hallucinates something wrong it's been helpful for my learning.
Another way I've been using ChatGPT is to be a personal tutor to correct me when learning foreign languages, it's pretty easy to create a prompt asking ChatGPT to have a conversation with me in a given language while correcting any mistakes it believes I made, I've been getting feedback from these corrections from some native speakers and so far haven't got any case of "this is absurd and wrong", unsure why it works so well to correct my broken grammar but it does and without a fault.
But I still feel most of them are in the 'google but nicer' stage.
But AI tools are mainstream now. You can hear them mentioned on TV, written about online and in traditional media, see them discussed on social media in non-tech circles, etc.
So I'd say your friend is likely not well informed. AI tools are in the same arena as cryptocurrencies, perhaps slightly less widely known. Most informed people have heard about them, but not many outside of tech circles actually have any experience with them, and even less understand how they work.
This is the natural progression of technology[1]. We've seen it happen with computers, the internet, the web, cell phones, etc.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle
People are unavoidably ignorant of vast swathes of “probably relevant to them” things. No one has time, inclination, or actual ability to keep up with it all. That reinforces the above but I am again doubtful that it is an “echo chamber” per se.
Hacker News regulars, especially those engaged with comments, are operating within an echo chamber, sure.
Outside of a couple of 70+ folks and some bikers, everyone I know is at least conversationally aware of recent “AI” developments so it’s most likely a function of your particular uselessly small sample size. :)
(I can agree with a weaker version of that statement: homework that can be done by ChatGPT doesn't have any value and should be done away with.)
By applying the label AI, they bring in the connotations of all the stories we have told ourselves about djinn, golems, robots, HAL-9000, Skynet, and (not frequently enough) the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
This will affect us all, in tech or outside tech.
In fact, I'd bet that the opposite will happen WRT AI-generated content: individual writers with personality will become even more in-demand. ChatGPT isn't going to fake a "personality" anytime soon.
The demand may be there, but discoverability will be very difficult with so many people already in that arena. The Awl and Splinter News was an online publication made up of ex-Gawker people, exactly the kind of independent voice you'd think people would want to read. And they did, just not in enough volume for those sites to ever make money. And now they're both dead.
I was thinking more along the lines of Substack, but with a larger dose of "influencer" personality-driven brands.
>Overall, 18% of U.S. adults have heard a lot about ChatGPT, while 39% have heard a little and 42% have heard nothing at all.
>However, few U.S. adults have themselves used ChatGPT for any purpose. Just 14% of all U.S. adults say they have used it for entertainment, to learn something new, or for their work.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/24/a-majorit...
And this is considered "few adults" ?!
I wrote up my thoughts about it last month https://kyledrake.com/writings/ai
Christopher Nolan just finished a movie profile of J Robert Oppenheimer, has presumably spent a lot of time thinking about nuclear weapons, and has similar lesser-concerns about AI https://www.wired.com/story/christopher-nolan-oppenheimer-ai...
Two anecdotes:
1. I saw a posting for a prompt engineer which had virtually no requirements beyond some passing familiarity with LLMs, who's job it was to think up clever prompts and archive them in a library. Salary - $350k+
2. I heard a real conversation between two highly trained technical folks around using an LLM to do a simple data transform from one wire format to another. Yes, let's use a cluster of GPUs and some faulty hacked together prompt to transform a well written structured format to another at speeds that approach molasses. Nobody had a clue as to how much the runtime costs of this would be. The solution to it being slow? Add more clusters. -- absolute idiocy.
We're burning money on this stuff like it's mid-80s Japan spending money on slightly different variations of pocket calculators and American real-estate. Meanwhile we're exploiting Kenyan workers to some of the worst filth humanity can produce in an effort to keep one of these AIs of producing child gore porn because it's illegal to pay first world people $2/hr to do the same job -- and there's not a psychotherapist to be found anywhere in the chain.
And then it's being pushed at the regular consumer as if it's some kind of knowledge oracle to replace the "horrors" of the search box that:
a) won't only know what the state of the world was when it was trained 2 years ago
b) won't produce a worthless hallucinated answer that could send somebody off to take a poison for a cold
This shit is terrible and I just used it to give me advice on updating my resume a few weeks ago for a job in the field.
Fuck it.
I.. can totally hear it in my mind.. including ISO20022 requirements happy talk.
My initial take to the posed question that it isn't just tech. Business orgs appear to be jumping in with both feet ( thankfully, my little corner of the universe seems more conservative for now ). Still, it does not disprove your statement that we are in a heavy hype train now.
edit: I do take issue with wire format being well written ( or structured ) at this point. There is a reason SWIFT had to back down a little on the aggressive timeline for example.
I can't stop shaking my head whenever I read any article on AI written by non-tech journalists (and even many by tech journalists). AI is vastly more dangerous and more urgent than climate change, than Russia and China, than literally any other hot topic today, and it's being treated like a combination of a science fiction story and an entertainment tool.
AI -might- kill us if there is some quantum leap that makes it sentient.
Climate change -will- kill us if we do nothing.
For now one is simply not like the other, it may change but there is no guarantee we every breach that barrier.
Horseshit. There is not a single scientific model that predicts human extinction from climate change. Parts of humanity, yes. All of humanity, no chance.
There a plenty of models that predict human extinction from AGI.
I agree AGI would be horrendously dangerous and if achieved has a higher chance of complete extinction. However, we don't have AGI and it's still not clear we ever will.
You could dispute that WW3 would cause human extinction, and while I'm not remotely certain of it I think that WW3 could cause extinction, if there's a sufficient combination of 1) climate collapse and 2) worldwide economic collapse that makes high-tech systems impossible to sustain.
“Let’s block out the sun, it will be good for global warming” says the billionaire as plants and animals freeze and die. WE NEED THE SUN THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL US OFF. Duh if this is not self evident then you are already dead.
No, it's not. And most (not quite all, there are some genuine nutballs) of the people selling that idea are selling it to push a political agenda attached to their financial interest (mostly, in AI: either by pushing AI danger to advance competition-limiting regulatiom or by pushing the kind of AI danger that is not actually imminent with hyperbolic language to distract from the real and present issues with AI, and sometimes both.)
No it isn't, and I say that as a user and Integrator of ML tech.
Climate Change: Literally our planetary habitat becoming uninhabitable for our species.
Russia: A country with one of the largest nuclear arsenals literally threatening a large portion of the world with nuclear annihilation.
Excuse me when the prospect of changes in the economic landscape for white collar jobs doesn't look particularly frightening compared to such problems. Especially since we live in a day and age where 2 entire generations have lived most of their lives in almost constant economic upheavals anyway.
As for all the AI-doomerism that's flying around the net: As long as no one can even give me a precise, quantifieable definition of "general intelligence", aka. one that doesn't include pointing at ourselves, and a method to measure how far AI is from that, I will work under the assumptions confirmed by what is measureable and observable: that what we have are still stochastic inference engines.
Our politicians together with our sycophantic media and their weapons salesmen talking heads really do spread the most egregious disinformation throughout every wartime situation we are involved in, by proxy or otherwise.
Glass houses... stones...
Then please, link me the relevant statements. Liz Truss's (who btw. isn't Britains PM any more) remarks were made in late August 2022 [1]. The russian nuclear sabre-rattling started in February 2022 [2].
So who exactly has threatened russia with nuclear weapons to elicit these responses? Helping a souvereign nation defend itself against an invasion and protecting their land and people, is not a threat. Offering a souvereign nation to join a military pact is also not a threat.
[1]: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/08/26/jfvn-a26.html
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_threats_during_the_Rus...
But enough unemployment caused by the next wave of automation is sure going to cause civil unrest.
Look at the chartists, luddite and the saboteurs. Some of them were weavers who up until that point had been in high society, running parts of countries through the guilds system. Then over a couple of years, the bottom fell out and they were cast into the mills like the unlanded labours.
That, was not a smooth transition.
The people that claim "oh there will be new jobs" I mean sure, there probably will be, but they forget to mention the important qualifier: "eventually"
Also the high school student I am mentoring has told me that he knows people feeding chat gpt their essay writing styles and asking it to write about other topics with the same style.
This is in the Midwest.
This discipline about bullshitting people does itself consist mostly of bullshit being poorly taught by outdated teachers on outdated courses.
That's pretty common among students to bullshit their clueless dinosaur kind of a teacher with modern technologies that make look bullshit seem legit.
My friend is a librarian at a high school. She tells me teachers are worried about what ChatGPT means for take-home essays. (I'm guessing 2023 is the year these stop getting assigned)
Everyone in the world with internet now has access to a personal research assistant. This thing gives better medical advice than doctors!! Give it 3 years and let's see who hasn't heard of ChatGPT.
Not saying that it's still not overhyped, but maybe the AI skeptics among the tech community are in their own echo chamber too?
People who aren't in tech or aren't informed don't know about the latest development in tech, same reason you don't know about the latest development in healthcare or construction...
But, and I'll only speak for myself, GPT allowed me to add more features to my side project in 2 months than I did in 3 years... If you know how to use it then it becomes a great tool, the 16k context 3.5 or the 32k tokens context in GPT 4 (when necessary because expensive) are really good and can do a lot and infer context and assume things about your project etc.
You shouldn't be a contrarian to be a contrarian, same thing happened with the blockchain, HN is still shitting on it in 2023 but I just transfered some crypto to my sister in another country instantly, where if I had to do it using the usual financial system it'll involve a lot more headache and will usually take a couple days... and all of this on the ethereum proof of stake blockchain aka not as power hungry as it was, this is objective value it adds.
Now the contrarians usually see posts written by 90 IQ "journalists" (bots) that say "AI will make humans irrelevant" or "blockchain will kill all banks" and they start responding against this but also miss the actual value these things add, of course chatGPT will not build you a house that's obvious and only another bot would argue for and against it, but it can help you become a lot more efficient.
But how active are they? Have they had 100M users briefly dally with it and ask a few banal questions to pick apart the answers, or have they got 100M dedicated repeat users who are heavily using it and keeping on it?
My friends: very, very much in tech, we have a channel in our discord where we just laugh at AI/ML/Musk/Crypto because it's so stupid. It can't even fucking add two numbers. It doesn't actually help with internal, brownfield projects with complex business logic and custom internal integrations. It can't summarize legal documents or answer technical questions without completely making crap up. It's just sparkling auto-complete.
My work: I've been put on an LLM project. The purpose? Dunno. The goal? Dunno. Our VPs are on the hype train and I'm along for the ride as long as my paycheck keeps clearing (and interviewing in the meantime). They're literally taking tech and trying to find a use for it. It's just the blockchain hype all over again.
I no longer search google for programming question. 8/10 times gpt4 gives me code snippet that I can copy paste without any modification. It is like stack overflow on steroids. I can also discuss different system design tradeoffs with it.
It will take longer than some "evangelists" anticipate, but other than a lot of tech hypecycles (like web3), this one is different for 3 reasons:
a) It's firmly in the public mindspace, including mass media
b) It has already proven it's usefulness and applicability to real world problems
c) Politics are taking it very seriously
There are people who don't use it, for various reasons, but it is increasingly hard to never have heard of it.A large part of that drive is due to the simple accessibility: Making ChatGPT as a convenient and simple webapp that appeals to non-techies was a brilliant move, and Microsoft driving integration into it's product suite will further adoption as well.
I don't think this is unusual. Adoption of iPhones and GUI-based computers was that way too. People who had those things were by definition more active on them, but not necessarily getting more done.
There could be some self selection going on here. Someone who was really fluent at the old way might not see such a boon from the new way.
I confess to being among the ambivalent, but I see it being used around me, chatted with people about it etc., so I'm not ignorant about it.
I talked to a blue-collar worker (has his own business) the other day and he was in some Telegram group that "leveraged AI for marketing". You ever wondered who the target audience for these thin bullshit AI marketer wrappers on top of ChatGPT are? Or the courses and "mastermind" groups on how to write marketing prompts? Apparently, blue collar workers with a small business who want to save on actual marketing and don't have the expertise to realize the downsides.
This might not be a bad market; if you're not experienced with writing things yourself and just need some text and don't want to find/pay a writer, it will do an acceptable job. It's like upgrading from a badly handpainted sign to a nicely printed one.
Whether this is going to generate enough revenue for OpenAI is a different question.
For instance, hallucinations. They're a function of LLMs. But they're also something that everyday people have to deal with from each other in the miasma of the post-truth world.
What an opportunity, within the artificial intelligence field, to think of these tools not just as automation and fact-finding, but teaching how to avoid hallucinations in your own life?
Personal finance Grammar, rhetoric, logic, reason Information literacy Media literacy
The list goes on...
It absolutely does not.
Using the term "hallucinate" for LLMs has nothing to do with the underlying cause or process. It's a metaphor that I feel was specifically chosen by the AI industry to avoid terms like "lying" or "making a mistake".
LLMs hallucinate because they're next-word prediction engines, not logical engines. They have no conceptual understanding, which is why their hallucinations range from small factual errors to bizarre lies that are obviously false.
Humans hallucinate because our brains are reality-simulation engines that evolved to model the perception of events that aren't currently happening (remembering the past, imagining the future, etc.) and sometimes we lose our autonomy over our brains. The underlying process has nothing to do with predicting the next word we're going to say.
In fact, there's an even more fundamental difference: human hallucinations aren't necessarily tied to speech. We have thoughts that don't require output. There's nothing in LLMs that doesn't "come out" as output.
The user of an LLM still gets a vote, right or wrong. If we have a good understanding of how the human mind works - empathy - we can gain a better understanding on how to clarify the very semantic confusion of which you speak!
Here's another example that just popped up in my feed: https://kottke.org/23/07/will-ai-change-our-memories
Cryptocurrencies have tried since 2009 to present some kind of problem to which they are supposedly the solution.
The problems that generative ML models can solve are pretty clear.
I don't think so. Anecdotally I have had numerous non tech friends ask me about AI. The first thing they always seem to ask is if it will harm people to which I explain its just a tool and more specifically a big-data chat bot that can be manipulated just like the social media algorithms but give more confident and realistic sounding answers using language models to simulate human mimicry. The risk would be based on what entities tune it and the fact it can't or won't show it's work. A tool will do what a tool can do. The intentions of the tool operators and users determine what they tool will be doing.
Some of my non-tech friends are trying to find ways that tool can make them money and I have no doubt they will come up with clever uses for it until such time that the walled garden around these tools becomes to cost prohibitive for the average person to afford. After the masses have helped tune the tools I suspect they will be exclusively for large corporations and government entities to rent. I predict that prior to the walls going up, the public interfaces may appear to have lower quality results so that there isn't an uproar when the interface becomes cost prohibitive. This is why I warn them not to base an entire business on this service but rather to augment something.
Sadly I think you've contradicted yourself a small bit here, while also stumbling across the exact reason AI mainstream adoption will go quicker than anticipated: it'll happen without mainstream awareness.
I work in a security role and we're currently trying to do risk assessments of AI adoption by tech workers, and integration of AI APIs/services into our products, and it's not even a case of "how bad will it be", it's much more "how bad is it". AI is being used a lot by individuals in the workplace with very little discourse or auditing of that usage.
Even outside of tech, someone somewhere in it administration was already seeing enough daily AI usage to warrant the drafting of this official guidance, for quite a non-tech-industry audience: https://twitter.com/marcidale/status/1645972869393047552
The echo chamber in tech is people thinking they're in an echo chamber. I mean come on, 90% of people in tech have never built an LLM in their lives they just read some laymans article on it like everyone else and harp on how it's not an AI and it's just a "token predictor" and other generic arguments like that.
What I'm saying is that MOST people in tech don't do AI and therefore their perspective on LLMs is equivalent to someone completely outside of tech. Every typical software engineer thinks because they took a small course on ML or they read a little bit about chatGPT and that puts them on a pedestal above an average non-tech worker... well I hate to break it to you, the non-tech worker can look up those articles too.
They can also play with chatGPT extensively which doesn't require any tech skills and they can literally see for themselves what a game changer the technology is.
There are regular articles on it in mainstream news. Most of the people I know have tried it. Some of them can't see it will be useful, and some of them already find it useful. Some of them are techies and some aren't. Some techies are in the set that don't think it is useful.
In this case it seems kinda the opposite, the enterprises are the first off the bat - existing products getting easier to use by ingraining LLM's into the workflow.
ChatGPT to a large extent also does seem to be moving search terms away from google. I would love to see trends on google.com vs ChatGPT vs Bing over a period of time - Search definitely seems to be changing, where we want summaries and content rather than a bunch of sponsored ads and websites where the context has to be derived from search.
I am also interested if the same is happening with StackOverflow -> the search on SO -> ChatGPT as a code generator.
For mainstream adoption, the adoption will be driven by the everyday software and applications we use. We are still in the shovels and picks part of the world, yet to see native AI consumer applications emerge (barring ChatGPT).
Saw an old friend of mine recently. He's smart - majored in math - but spent many years running a landscaping company. He was showing me a spreadsheet he made to show musical scales and the position of notes on a guitar. You could select picking style and it would change the layout. Very complicated cell formulas - no code. I asked how he ever did all that. He. Said ChatGPT saved him countless hours. He praised it highly for the conversational style vs Google that just gives links to generic information, and the ability to refine your request to get better answers. It can also give formulas in some instances but he tests them. He's taken up using it for other things as well.
To be honest though, he could have be a deeply technical person, but he's only interested in such things to the extent it can solve real world problems. Not sure how many people fall in that category.
Technically, the answer is yes and no, but with the context here, no, we aren't in an echo chamber. People who are not in tech are routinely using ChatGPT and AI functionality. I know this because people who I know aren't in tech have told me how they are using it, and how many other people in their industry are using it.
The key here is what industry are they in, and can they make use of what ChatGPT provides.
And it's not just ChatGPT, but AI stuff in general.
The difference between this and crypto and web3 is that crypto and web3 required a LOT of explaining on how it could be useful. AI didn't, and simply said here is the input, and here is the output. That's it. They didn't suggest value. The value was easily apparent. It was tangible. Something that was real.
Does this mean every industry is talking about AI? I'm sure the answer is no. But every industry has it's own echo chamber. That's immaterial.
> maybe AI mainstream adoption will take longer than we anticipate.
Everything always takes long than we anticipate. And it's not like AI today is the holy grail yet. It's still slow, expensive, with too many errors, and we are just less than a year in the real hype. Legal systems are busy with working out the corners and acceptance. We are still in the exploring-phase, and this can go on for several years. There will be significant changes in the next years, but the big bang is still upon us, and until then it will a locally fast, but globally average slow change.
So yes, your friend is unusual, especially as a millienial where even more have heard of it and used it. When you're asking a statistics question, make sure you cite statistics instead of asking people to write comments from their toilet.
Also: "Just 14% of U.S. adults have tried ChatGPT". I think we need to take a step back and consider how much the bar has been raised. "Just" 14% of Americans? This is an incredibly high number.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/24/a-majorit...
My In-laws talk about chatGPT (lawyer and store owner) my parents (doctors) ask me about ChatGPT, my colleagues ask me about it re: its impact on film production, my siblings talk about it. Hell the WGA is talking about chatGPT as part of the strike.
Again, I obviously have my own little social bubble of somewhat like-minded people, but I feel like I’m talking about AI and ChatGPT every other day. I see articles on main stream publications at least weekly. It’s basically as well known as Bitcoin - if not more so - as far as I can tell. Very surprising to me this person still hasn’t heard about it!
I am not aware of that!
I am definitely inside the tech echo chamber but I do not use ChatGPT, will not do so, don't care about it, and frankly don't respect people who do. It is not a useful thing, and all the "AI" (it isn't) garbage that's popping up right now is equally useless.
I say this on HN often and people come back with "but it reached 1M users so fast!" I don't care. Millions of people smoke cigarettes, that doesn't prove they're useful.
I am going to sit this hype cycle out. Maybe it will eventually be useful for something. I am clearly not the one to try to imagine what that will be.
Interestingly, there's a big age component in this poll, and rather than being a smooth grade like most tech, there's a very strong divide at 45yo—those younger than 45 are over 4x as likely to report they often use AI tools than those over 45.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ifywkae5dt/econTabReport.pdf#pag...
We already had AI in our daily lives, such as translation, object recognition, voice assistant, spam filter, fraud detection systems and a lot more.
Most of these are old and boring and yet deeply embedded in our daily life.
The hype bubble is on the new LLM and generative art AI tech, which are backed by a lot of money, so a lot of hype is generated. Without hype, corporations can’t sell us on novelty but once their pockets are filled, they exit and these eventually cool down when something new comes along.
However, with each novelty, we are usually left with some bits and pieces of useful residual tech that gives us a little improvement on our daily life, so every hype leaves with something useful.
My own personal opinion is that depending on your particular area of expertise, you will have various levels of resolution of knowledge. We might be in an echo chamber on AI here, but many of us aren’t even real specialists on the subject. So, we fall prey to various cognitive biases [1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
Regarding your friend - a few technological revolutions occurred without the general population really knowing anything about how they work. New tools show up, people use them.
There's a lot of overhype, A LOT. And many startups are reinventing the wheel in a more expensive way just to ride the wave, but unlike crypto, LLMs are tools that can solve more "dev/user" level problems, unlike crypto, that was supposed to solve a "global financial system" problem, and since that's too hard to grasp, people used it as investments, because it's closer to their real lives and needs.
An echo chamber would mean everyone having the same opinions, and that's not the case here, at least speaking to tech people broadly.
I think no. I think most of the people will use the products without even hearing about GPT or LLM. There will be products that are based on LLM but they will have nice and easy to use UI which will be not much different that any other usual UI but they will have more advanced capabilities. People will just use them without realizing what is behind those UIs.
I think, because there is no need for user to know what is behind UI adoption of new LLM based AI will be much faster than other new technologies that we seen so far.
So this case where you are talking to people outside the bubble, and they don't realize what is going on, IS THE PROBLEM.
Outside the bubble, people will be seeing images, video, text, voice, that is all fake and manipulated, and THEY ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION, they don't know it is fake. Inside the bubble we are noticing it, outside the bubble, large chunks of population don't know it is happening.
This tech is in its infancy, and the whole "prompt engineering" thing even though fun and all, will eventually be unnecessary, and _then_ it'll be widespread.
I've even spoke to friends IN the tech industry that are not using it, at least not to the extent of a lot of people is using it.
And even I am not using it as much as I would like, but then I don't have enough free time.
All in all, just give it time. In my case, I hardly use Google these days.
Especially college students
I think we just witnessed something akin to the birth of personal computers which puts us around the ‘60-‘70s. It’ll take a while to (vastly) improve and eventually disseminate into society. I’d say a decade at least.
A lot of the surrounding “infrastructure” is still missing, like in the olden days. Techies are scarce and needed for other things. Energy and thus compute is expensive and society still has some important open questions left to answer about its own stability if it wants to survive this next wave of evolution.
I've been in the process of moving so I haven't read through many of the responses, but it seems as though there was plenty of interaction between others which is cool!
I'll definitely review everything I can over the next week and follow up, I'm genuinely interested in understanding how others perceive this situation as well.
The worst part is the current state though, where all the crypto hype bros have come out of the woodwork and are rebranding as AI hype bros now. My Linkedin feed is sadly now full of idiots calling themselves "AI Expert" and similar such terms with made up resumes trying to sell their 'expertise'.
Common reactions to ChatGPT and a lot of the fear are definitely overemphasized in the tech field, but that makes sense.
… so my take is that it takes a bit of time to leverage these new tools popping into existence only a few months ago
I do think the integrations available in many of the tools I encounter is probably a better signal of potential and impact. We are in year one. I suspect LLMs will continue to evolve and still have market legs in a decade.
I would say it will mostly depend not on the public hype around it but on the pace at which it will acquire capabilities. If it stays at GPT 4 level, it will be gradually used to automate various tasks over the years.
If on the other hand it keeps the progression GPT 2 -> 3 -> 4, then by the time we are at GPT 6, it will be able to easily replace a wide range of jobs.
Please share products that exist today that leverage ChatGPT and are useful. A product that could not exist w/o ChatGPT. A product with actual users and a productive chatGPT.
ChatGPT is nothing more than a tech preview or fun experiment that will pave the way for the future. However, it's still confidently wrong, easily confused and incredibly filtered.
I'd love to see a product with tangible results.
It's going to be terrible in a few years time when you try to cancel a subscription or raise a complaint with a company and they throw an AI in front of you. Most call centres are designed to waste your time so you go away, we are going to see impressive new frontiers of absolute bullshit form.
AI though, struck a nerve because people intuit a killer app. Or more precisely, AI could potentially be applied in many different places. The last time we had something that felt like this was probably the web browser — at least for me, it is.
I think it is because we are now really close to what the non-technical mainstream public thinks computing should be — “do what I mean, not what I say”.
Anyway, call it AI, ML, statistics, the truth is: all these algorithms are helping us get rid of the boring stuff in tech.
ie.: I won't waste my time reading a regex documentation to learn how to remove every white space after a combination of characters, because I'll completely forget it two days later. and the examples goes on and on.
Maybe, but like, ChatGPT has broken outside the echo chamber. NPR and marketplace have had plenty of stories on it. Like, my parents probably haven't but they are retired, and veg out on soap operas, game shows and avoid anything that sounds like news.
My sister in law (an orthodontist) had chatGPT draft a job ad when hiring an assistant.
My wife just graduated with a non-tech master's degree. On her graduation, the head of the program made humorous references to chatGPT and cited it ln a few topics in her speech.
To be honest it's a no brainier. It's helpful tech with a low barrier to entry, and free. People will use it.
So, are LLMs as popular outside of HN and similar communities - no. Are people outside of them interested - definitely yes.
I give it some restrictions and a few preferences and ask it to suggest 20 things for me to cook. It's very helpful.
Some family have heard of ChatGPT and have misunderstood what it can do, so I’ve had fun showing them the limitations of it.
If I have to anthropomorphise the gpt3.5 prompt, "it" is an average intelligence intern who can only google up to 31st of march 2021 and has several insecurities and character flaws. It is unable to follow a plan, needs guidance at every step, needs to repeat itself constantly and sometimes makes things up as it goes.
If you can export a UI with defined behaviors from Figma to React / NextJS, and AI can figure out how to code it, then Front End Developers become a thing of the past.
If there's a similar modelling tool for Back End and AI can code the exported design, then BE devs become obsolete.
It is irrelevant if lay people have heard of it or not - we're still out of a job.
For my own experience I use it every day, but the only thing it really solves is saving me time. I've seen lots of neat demos, hacks, agents etc and still haven't figured out what business problem LLMs solve besides time-saving.
She uses AI more than me, who’s hunting for deals on gpu’s to train my own DRL model.
I was honestly shocked when I found out. I had figured that it was a tech echo chamber too.
Crypto was more mixed from my recollection, a bit less ivory tower as the tech isn’t that complex, and very prominent people in the tech itself werent so readily making huge claims.
I’m seeing tech leaders saying things that make me concerned, like engineers saying Bard was sentient.
Plenty of them.
And I showed it to a few and they were immediately impressed by it.
I also overheard people talking about it on the street.
So in my opinion: no.
And chatgpt has over 100 million users. People can use it in bing every day.
Adobe added it to their products too.
People already benefit from ai.
My company is also working on introducing more features it's just the time required to do it.
It has the potential to be a Google killer as it’s much more effective at sussing out specific information. But, the ideological guard rails OpenAI insist upon are super annoying. You can never fully trust that you’re getting a non-politically biased output.
Practically every mainstream comedy show I hear in the UK mentions chatgpt, it's been constantly in the news over the last 6 months. Every high school child knows how to use it, hell there was a south park episode a couple of months about chatgpt written by chatgpt.
This isn't niche stuff.
The reality as far as I can tell is that we still have an incredible distance to go to have anything comparable to unlocking spoken or written language.
When we can, we will be creating something superhuman in the truest sense. What we have now isn’t that at all. I think it appears magical because we’re so enthralled by language. It’s a major interface into our world and we’re extremely stimulated by it. It conveys so much meaning to us with so little. In fact, when it conveys too little meaning we begin to search for it and fill in the gaps! Our brains are extremely eager to engage with language.
I’m excited about this stuff, but what the models are doing isn’t as incredible as all of that seems.
The actual developers range from enthusiastic to skeptical. Actual developers take a practical perspective IMO.
I talked to her about prompt engineering for a little, but not sure that I really got through what I was talking about.
Personally? I think we're sleep walking into social disaster and this tech is only going to make people's lives more difficult.
--"You know it's free, right?"
"Yes."
I found this inexplicable and infuriating. Perhaps someone can shed light on the psychology of such people?
Why did you find this infuriating? There's only so much time in the day; different people have different priorities.
2) everything is still moving fast. Unless they plan to keep up with it, they may be planning to look into it later after the dust settles a bit
3) their time is already budgeted and it isn't clear what they should skip / cancel to look into it
4) they aren't sure exactly where to start and so they procrastinate. No trusted source has sent them a link to try, they don't want to sift through search results and potential scams, they don't want to make an account, etc
But. The suggestion that "all echo chambers are as bad as each other" isn't warranted, this is the "bothsidesism" fallacy (1)
That's why you'd look at if their predictions are grounded in reality, or are spinning wild "what if" scenarios, or are concentrating on culture war alarmism about not-particularly salient threats, or promoting a scheme that makes them money. Finally, look at the track record of the people making the claims. How did their previous claims work out?
Part of me thinks the tech echo chamber is working the other way around here: a lot of techies who just know and and talk to other techies are all in a bubble thinking it's all overhyped blahablhabah without stepping back and thinking how it can enable every day people (whatever that means) to do things they previously could not -- at speed.
My 86 yo father is far, far from Silicon Valley and his main activities are playing piano and talking with other residents of his retirement home, but he uses GPT-4 every day
So far the recipes have been pretty good!
It’s fascinating. Though it probably isn’t intentional, AI service providers are already hooking kids early to have customers later.
The thing is, we need to teach them that today rather than tell them it’s cheating and try to catch them using it on essays and deal some kind of consequence.
I now use it professionally fairly regularly and it’s an easily justified expense. I’ve already delivered things to clients faster because of it. Most recently I reasoned through prototyping a sort of minimal CMS experience using a self hosted CMS API connected to Next.JS, and had a viable plan and prototype at the proposal stage in as much time as I’d normally just do the research on something like this.
If it’s feasible to accelerate learning and research for real world work, I think we should seriously consider how it integrates with education rather than encourage kids to avoid it entirely. Of course, we don’t have that awareness in our education workforce in Canada, but I wonder if it’s harmful to discourage the use entirely rather than accepting it and ensuring kids are still producing the work that’s expected. If it’s clearly GPT regurgitation with hallucinations and no bibliography, the kid has still failed to deliver. If they manage to do their work faster with technology (the main difference here is that they haven’t googled bunch of stuff, frankly) then great, they’re still learning something.
And of course, the more you tell kids not to use it, the more they’ll want to (which I’ve come to love, honestly).
We’re at the early phase of AI, it demos well but seems to break down in ways that seem obvious in the real world. We’re at the limit of how big the models we can train now. GPT4 has been described as 8 GPTs in a trench coat by George Hotz which was later confirmed by the founder of PyTorch. I’m not saying we have nothing to worry about, just that the hype seems to overtake reality early in the adoption cycle.
GPT4 is like an unreliable but brilliant employee.
I am bored of ChatGPT, AI this, AI that. I scarcely talk about ChatGPT with my peers. While I am certainly interested by AI and even dabbled with it in my MSc years, I found it tiresome to only read about it.
I kept think that the entire conversation sounded like two vocal transcription bots reading through r/AI and HN with a sprinkling of Twitter.
Yesterday I was having a drink with some friends, one of whom is like me in tech. The others in shipping, finance and sales. They all had experimented with ChatGPT and/or Midjourney.
In Feb, at a birthday party, I talked to people about it, people knew about it but didn't use it yet.
In March, at a different birthday party, everyone wanted to talk to me about it.
Today, its old news. Although whenever I meet someone who says its a fad, I consider them a luddite.
Some people get it, some people don’t.
And that’s OK by me.
I have an AI startup with thousands of active paying monthly users and they are all marketing people and not highly technical
Its making headlines left and right, and businesses are all trying to figure out what this stuff does, but if you're not watching much news and not in the tech side of business you probably don't know or care?
I'm using an LLM to teach me interactively how LLMs work and how to integrate LLMs into our products. It's replaced 90% of my googling/stack overflow. Every engineer in our company is using Copilot and ChatGPT to write software.
New Bing is a slight improvement in that you get some transparency about where it's getting information from and can tell it to prioritise accuracy, but can't actually explicitly tell it to use a subset of the web that you personally trust.
Honestly i'm more worried about the ones who will use it this way and assume it's always correct. It is too often incorrect for anything I've ever done with it.
There are plenty of folks who don't fall into this trap.
Example: Me. I am fully aware that LLM generated code can be wrong or worse, contain disastrous errors. But being aware of that, and looking for the things I know from experience it commonly gets wrong, allows me to use it as an incredibly powerful tool in my workflow.
With the junior, I need a meeting.
With the LLM, I just let it redo.
…like what you’re doing right now.
The things it is good for are being obscured by promises of a waterfall of tasks performed all by AI ending up in something usable. If you tell me you have a neat programme that does exactly what you expect 99.4% of the time yet you have no knowledge of why the 0.6% fail you will have to demonstrate that is has some very desirable properties not offered by other solutions. Hammer, looking for nuts, what is nuts is people taking £100 mill to wrap some langchain... the burn rate to get noticed is going to be half your spend, the other half is subsidising loss making operations with the idea that there is some pie to win here.
It's a novel database. Fun, creative, unpredictable in interesting ways, like my cousin.
Generative AI is a huge topic of discussion amongst virtually all creatives (painters, graphic artists, musicians, authors, journalists), in business (at all levels largely through business process management, finance, and business intelligence), amongst media (joualism and entertainment), amongst governments (regulation, electoral politics, international relations, military / strategic risks, intelligence, competitiveness, impacts on general employment and social stability), amongst the technological boomer and doomer communities (impacts on future technological development will likely be profound, though agreement on sign bits differs), and more.
It's true that the general person on the street likely has little sense of the potential and risks, but that is virtually always the case with new technological developments. Potential impacts are always hard to see, and the discussion about these almost always tends toward various elites (technological, business, government, academic, religious). And that's the case now.
But the conversation and concern is not limited to the information technology elite, by any measure.
It’s now just another tool in life’s toolbox.
( No no no nooo noooOooo noooOooOoooo )
I also think adoption will depend on "industry." ChatGPT in education for example:
* BestColleges [1] (n=1000) found 43% of college students have used ChatGPT, and 22% have said they used it to help complete assignments or exams.
* Study.com [2] (n=1100) had some crazier numbers. "Over 89% of students have used ChatGPT to help with a homework assignment. ... 48% of students admitted to using ChatGPT for an at-home test or quiz, 53% had it write an essay, and 22% had it write an outline for a paper."
* Interestingly, in K-12, adoption appears to be higher by teachers than students [3]: "Within two months of its introduction, a 51% majority of teachers reported using ChatGPT, with 40% using it at least once a week, and 53% expecting to use it more this year. Just 22% of students said they use the technology on a weekly basis or more."
* In Japan, a recent survey [4] (n=4000) of undergraduate students conducted from Tohoku University showed 32.4% have used ChatGPT. This is compared to about 7% office workers in Japan using ChatGPT on the job [5] (n=13814) in a recent poll by MM Research Institute.
Of course, education isn't the only industry with an outsized impact (although it's interesting in the sense that it's a good temperature check for the upcoming generation, especially if it's something that is so prevalent at colleges/universities).
But there are other industries as well. a16z Games has been doing a game development survey on Generative AI use in games, and their preliminary results [6] are in-line with my personal experience/view into the game industry - that it has already been completely re-aligning/disrupting the production pipeline: "We heard from 243 game studios - large and small - the results were astonishing ... 87% of studios use an AI tool or model in their studio TODAY. 99% of studios PLAN to use the technology in the future."
I think it's worth noting, that while the sources are dodgy, that even if the 100M user number is accurate for ChatGPT, that's only ~2% of global internet users, and <1% of the world population. You could probably confidently say that 99% of the world population has not directly used a generative "AI" product yet (obviously anyone that's used a mobile phone or the internet has been interacting with ML for years). I do think this is going to change very rapidly however, but no matter how fast it goes, it won't be overnight.
[1] https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-to...
[2] https://study.com/resources/perceptions-of-chatgpt-in-school...
[3] https://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/chatgpt-used-by-teach...
[4] https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14927968
[5] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Use-ChatGPT-at-w...
[6] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troykirwin_ai-x-game-developm...
Yes.
Here's how the adoption of this technology is going to go (this is the way all AI technology adoption has gone for 60 years):
1) Papers will come out showing how by creating a more effective way to leverage compute + data to make a system self-improving, performance at some task looks way better than previous AI systems, almost human-like. (This already happened: "All You Need Is Attention")
2) The first generally available implementations of the technology, in a pretty raw form, will be released. People will be completely amazed at how this machine can do something that was thought to be a hallmark of humans! And by just doing $SIMPLE_THING (search, token prediction) which isn't "really" "thinking"! (This will amaze some people but also form the basis of a lot of negative commentary) (Also already happened: ChaGPT, etc)
3) There will be a huge influx of speculative investment capital into the space and a bunch of startups will appear to take advantage of this. At the same time, big old tech companies will start putting stickers on their existing products that say they're powered by LLMs. (Also already happened)
4) There will be a wave of press, first in the academia, then in technology circles, then in the mainstream, about What This Means. "AGI" is just over the horizon, all human jobs are about to be gone, society totally transformed. (We are currently here at step 4)
5) After a while, the limits of the technology will start to become clear. A lot of the startups will figure out that they don't really have a business, but a few will be massively successful and either build real ongoing businesses that use LLMs to solve problems for people, or get acquired. It will turn out that LLMs are massively, massively useful for some previously-thought-to-be-nearly-impossible or at least contigent on solving the general AI problem work: something like intent extraction, grammarly-type writing assistants, Intellisense on steroids, building natural chat interfaces to APIs in products like Siri or Alexa that understand "turn on the light" and "turn on the lights" mean the same thing. I have no idea what the things will actually be, if I was good at that sort of thing I'd be rich.
6) There will be a bunch of "LLMs are useless!" press. Because LLMs don't have Rosie-from-the-Jetsons level of human-like intelligence, they will be considered "a failure" for the general AI problem. Once people get accustomed to whatever the actual completely amazing things LLMs get used for, things that seemed "impossible" in 2021. Startups will fail. Enrollments in AI courses in school will drop, VCs will pull back from the category, AI in general (not just LLMs) will be considered a doomed investment category for a few years. This entire time, LLMs will be used every day by huge numbers of people to do super helpful things. But it will turn out that no one wants to see a movie where the screenplay is written by AI. The LLM won't be able to drive a car. All the media websites that are spending money to have LLMs write articles will find out that LLM-generated content is a completely terrible way to get people to come to your site, read some stuff and look at ads, with terrible economics, and these people will lose at least hundreds of millions of dollars, probably low billions, collectively.
7) At this trough point where LLMs have "failed" and AI as a sector is toxic to VCs, what LLMs do will somehow be thought of as 'not AI'. "It's just predicting the next token" or something will become the accepted common thinking that disqualifies it as 'Artificial Intelligence'. LLMs and LLM engineering will be considered useful and necessary, but it will be considered a part of mainstream software engineering and not really 'AI' per se. People will generally forget that whatever workaday things LLMs turn into a trivial service call or library function, used to be massively difficult problems that people thought would require human-like general intelligence to solve (for instance, making an Alexa-like voice assistant that, can tell 'hey can you kill the lights', 'yo shutoff the overhead light please?', 'alright shut the lights', 'close the light' all mean the same thing). This will happen really fast. https://xkcd.com/1425/
Sometimes when you see an amazing magic show, if you later learn how the trick was done, it seems a lot less 'magical'. Most magic tricks exploit weird human perceptual phenomena and, most of all, the magicians willingness to master incredibly tedious technique and do incredibly tedious work. Even though we 'know' this at some level when we see magicians perform, it's still deflating to learn the details. For some reason, AI technology is subject to the same phenomenon.
Do you think this doesn't get 100% better in the next few years with the billions of dollars that are pouring in? Because a GPT-4 that is 100% better at generating useful content is a game changer. Now what if instead of a 2x improvement we see a 3,4,5 or even 10x improvement in the ability of the technology?
All the people comparing the hype around AI with crypto have good pattern matching without any judgement. I personally never got into crypto. I'm very into AI.
What do you think?
(meaning "yes")