[HN Gopher] Stanford just released a 386-page report on the stat...
___________________________________________________________________
Stanford just released a 386-page report on the state of AI
Author : doener
Score : 212 points
Date : 2023-04-04 11:02 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| Kalanos wrote:
| it's probably already obsolete
| [deleted]
| mickael-kerjean wrote:
| Yep, I randomly picked a bit from the "technical performance"
| titled "capable language models still struggle with reasoning"
| and it doesn't mention GPT4
| ModernMech wrote:
| GPT4 also struggles with reasoning.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Indeed. Should be at least 486 pages.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Who is this absolutely hapless person and why is this linked? He
| most probably parsed the research with chatGPT or so I hope. He
| managed to write a concoction of useless datapoints and ended up
| piling up mistake and bias in most.
| rchaud wrote:
| Author seems to be an AI-fluencer/hustlebro.
| geodel wrote:
| So Gartner/McKinsey style crapola it is. Perhaps useful for
| AI Buzzword bingo.
| MisterPea wrote:
| Jeez thank you, one of my least favorite things on the internet
| is long and unnecessary twitter threads - just post the damn
| link!
| abeppu wrote:
| The report isn't interested in this question but I am: If we had
| spent the last decade throwing this amount of resources at some
| other family of ML techniques, would they have shown the same
| improvement? Or is there some parallel universe where if we had
| made 500B parameter non-parametric bayesian models or something
| we would have gotten to a similar place?
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| Another counterfactual branch could be considered where GPU
| innovation and market pushes from Gaming and Crypto did not
| happen to make transformer parallelization such a great value
| proposition and what alternative paths have not been explored
| thoroughly as a result.
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| Not an expert but intuitively, let's say in classical stat's.
| If you add parameters the danger of overfit increases. So it is
| far from obvious (at least to me) why it works at all and why
| bigger is obviously better.
| riotnrrd wrote:
| I'm a deep learning researcher so I can speak to this a little.
| Until roughly 2010 neural networks were barely used and broadly
| considered to be less efficient and less accurate than rival
| techniques (decision trees, support vector machines, etc.). For
| decades, far more work was put into these other approaches but
| the amazing thing about neural networks is that, even in a
| relatively primitive and neglected state, they outperformed
| traditional techniques. AlexNet is the poster-child of this
| phenomenon, but look at facial recognition, speech recognition,
| etc. These are all fields where older approaches are just dead.
| Nobody is working on SVMs for facial identification or object
| pose estimation anymore.
|
| It's more accurate to say that neural networks succeeded
| against the research darlings of the time despite being
| relatively ignored for decades.
| MattyMc wrote:
| Did they happen to release an LLM to summarize it for us?
| GaggiX wrote:
| Interestingly, Saudi Arabia seems to believe so much in the
| future of AI according to the report, I would have imagined that
| such a religious country would not believe in it much, artificial
| intelligence kinda feels like an affront to God (I am not
| religious but that is what I would imagine).
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The core figures involved with AI all seem to be worried that
| they're actually building Physical Gods[0], so perhaps Saudi
| Arabia is in the race to make sure our manmade gods are
| suitably Quranic[1].
|
| More likely they are just throwing money around in an attempt
| to make the physical embodiment of the Middle East's oil-
| fueled, centuries-long democratic backslide look modern and
| progressive. MBS loves to chuck money at flashy tech (and also
| Fox News).
|
| [0] Roco's Basilisk is just Pascal's Wager with a computer
| program that doesn't exist yet.
|
| [1] As interpreted by the most intolerant Wahhabist
| nickpeterson wrote:
| They're big fans until you ask it to criticize a holy book.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| how else will you run a country where the majority are slave
| labor ruled by a very, very rich minority.
| imiric wrote:
| Exactly as it's been run until now? Having access to cheap
| human labor negates the urgency to adopt AI into the
| workforce.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| i was implying ai will be used as a mechanism for control.
| stephenhuey wrote:
| First of all, even with all the recent hoopla, "AI" is nothing
| like what I'd consider intelligent despite the name. Machines
| have been able to out-compute humans for a long time, but when
| I interpret Genesis's verse about mankind being made in God's
| image, I think part of it is reasoning abilities that other
| creatures lack (and that AI may never be able to fully
| replicate/comprehend in the way we understand the world), as
| well as concepts like emotion/empathy and the ability to enjoy
| people/things/experiences. Islam accepts the same verse in
| Genesis that Judaism & Christianity do. As someone who has been
| reading Asimov from an early age and who keeps an eye out for
| Skynet, I'm not too concerned about them taking over anytime
| soon, although as a software developer, I certainly believe in
| the possibility that a complex buggy super-calculator may
| wrongfully decide to launch nuclear missiles. :)
| londons_explore wrote:
| Saudi Arabia believes in anything that looks like a great
| investment when you consider only as much as you can fit on 10
| presentation slides...
| luqtas wrote:
| did you come up with this comment out of your GPTbrain?
| abudabi123 wrote:
| Arabian cultures have a deep sense of geometry, math. That
| could be the key to human level A.I. observing the patterns in
| bigdata and biohacking models of the brain and the social
| information sphere.
| fakedang wrote:
| Well most of the Islamic age progress was mostly done by
| Persians and Turkic folks rather than Arabs, out of which
| none of the scholars were based in Saudi Arabia of all
| places.
|
| On the other hand, Arabs were extremely good at racial name
| calling (calling Persians Ajami, and calling chess evil and
| shit).
| muzani wrote:
| If you're interested in some theological debate, I actually
| asked a question on Islam SE on this 11 years ago:
| https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2320/is-it-haram-t...
|
| Take note the Islam SE community mostly comes from Stack
| Overflow and is somewhat biased towards tech. But it was a
| decent discussion with some solid citations.
|
| tldr: Imitation of humans and other living creatures is not
| okay, but nothing wrong with imitation of intelligence.
| GaggiX wrote:
| Very interesting, thank you
| detrites wrote:
| The size and speed graphs from 1950 to 2022 essentially shape an
| exponential but are already shown at log scale.
|
| There must be a word for that?
| wcoenen wrote:
| That would be a "double exponential function".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_exponential_function
| nmca wrote:
| super-exponential?
| amphitoky wrote:
| log log linear? :D
| gattilorenz wrote:
| Unrelated to your question, but the tweet "AI research has been
| heating up for years, with no signs of slowing down" is a bit
| disingenuous by showing stuff happening only after 2010 (while
| "parameters for machine learning models" are shown from 1950
| onwards).
|
| There's been multiple AI winters, and it would be wise not to
| sweep them under the rug.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| It would be nice if it were available in ePub format. PDFs don't
| render so well on sub-$400 e-readers lacking large screens.
| _joel wrote:
| Does it come with a math co-professor?
| Narishma wrote:
| There's a separate 387-page report for that.
| nico wrote:
| Where's the chat interface for this?
|
| No one wants to read a 386 page report.
|
| Any links for a version we could ask questions to?
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > No one wants to read a 386 page report.
|
| You don't have to. The bulk of the report homepage is the top
| ten takeaways of the work in bite-size format. The body of the
| report is (or at least should be) the evidence that supports
| these statements. A good conclusion should always be supported
| by evidence.
| nico wrote:
| Thank you. In fact the Twitter thread was very good.
| rswerve wrote:
| The Kagi Universal Summarizer (which is generally pretty great)
| gave me this as a summary:
|
| The Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2023 provides insights
| into the current state of AI research, development, and adoption.
| Key findings and implications from the report include:
|
| 1. Research and Development: The United States and China lead in
| cross-country collaborations in AI publications, with the number
| of collaborations increasing four times since 2010. China has
| also overtaken the European Union and the United Kingdom in AI
| conference publications, producing 26.2% of the world's share in
| 2021.
|
| 2. Technical Performance: AI models have become more advanced,
| with the release of text-to-image models like DALL-E 2 and Stable
| Diffusion, text-to-video systems like Make-A-Video, and chatbots
| like ChatGPT. AI systems are increasing in complexity due to
| advancements in hardware, data availability, and the performance
| of larger models.
|
| 3. Technical AI Ethics: In 2022, new ethics benchmarks and
| diagnostic metrics were introduced to address concerns about AI
| fairness, bias, and transparency. However, challenges remain in
| steering AI models to avoid harmful outcomes, such as toxicity,
| bias, and privacy violations.
|
| 4. Economy: AI hiring has grown in various countries, with Hong
| Kong experiencing the highest growth in 2022. Private investment
| in AI decreased for the first time in a decade, but AI remains a
| topic of interest for policymakers and industry leaders.
|
| 5. Education: The United States leads in AI-related postsecondary
| education, with a significant number of AI courses and programs
| offered at universities.
|
| 6. Policy and Governance: AI-related policymaking has increased,
| with the United States, Spain, and the Philippines passing the
| most AI-related laws in 2022. Legal cases involving AI highlight
| the challenges and complexities of AI in the courts.
|
| 7. Public Perception: Men are more likely than women to report
| that AI products and services make their lives easier and trust
| companies that use AI. Surveyed Americans are most excited about
| AI's potential to make life and society better (31%) and save
| time and increase efficiency (13%).
|
| 8. AI Talent: The top skills in the AI skill grouping include
| machine learning, natural language processing, data structures,
| computer vision, and deep learning, among others.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Can we really trust an AI summarizer to summarize a report on
| AI which may reflect poorly on AI?
| firatsarlar wrote:
| We need them. How do we trust a car at 200km/h , or a plane ?
| We'll test, standardize, improve and trust them.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| As much as we can trust it to summarize anything! It doesn't,
| like, know that it is the subject of the paper. And either
| way, it doesn't care if it lives or dies!
| barrysteve wrote:
| Trust? It's worse than that.
|
| I don't believe AI output. My eyes glaze over and I scroll
| past it. Anything that looks AI formatted is branded with
| disbelief and a cognizant awareness that it produces
| unverifiable shades-of-grey.
|
| Are we really going to live in a world where a blackbox
| program that does not produce meaningfully deterministic
| results and cannot be examined, is regarded as a source of
| truth?
|
| If AI takes in a poisoned database and spreads it, who would
| know? The AI leaving out vital information is just as
| dangerous, though we are used-to that problem.
|
| And that's before we even hit the accuracy of it's word
| predictions..
|
| I don't understand why people are keen on 'being friends'
| with the grim reaper parrot.
| MisterPea wrote:
| I wonder when South Asia will leapfrog the EU. It is insane to
| me still how orthogonal innovation is to European leaders.
| simontheowl wrote:
| What's interesting is that the trend in "Average Weighted
| Accuracy" seems to increase linearly in the past three years
| whereas the number of model parameters and required compute is
| growing exponentially. So accuracy is pretty expensive.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean, yes, you have around 100 trillion interconnections in
| your brain, likely the most complicated biological device on
| this planet, to create the accuracy you perform. We're just
| very power efficient when doing that computation.
| Upvoter33 wrote:
| What's weird is that many of the big names in AI (in CS) are not
| associated with this thing in any way. Maybe just Shoham?
| mellosouls wrote:
| The report homepage:
|
| https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/
|
| Honestly though a quick skim of those bullet points in the
| Twitter thread and looking at the length of it (nearly 400 pages)
| I am sceptical it's not a lot of corporatese for execs.
|
| Ps. already submitted here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35431057
| belter wrote:
| We need a plugin to have ChatGPT read it and resume it on a 5
| line post....
| d3vmax wrote:
| You can upload a pdf of the report to www.chatpdf.com and
| query it.
| yannis wrote:
| Thanks for chatpdf.com I found it very useful
| iruoy wrote:
| This is what Kagi's Universal Summarizer[0] generates[1]:
|
| The Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2023 provides
| insights into the current state of AI research, development,
| and adoption. Key findings and implications from the report
| include:
|
| 1. Research and Development: The United States and China lead
| in cross-country collaborations in AI publications, with the
| number of collaborations increasing four times since 2010.
| China has also overtaken the European Union and the United
| Kingdom in AI conference publications, producing 26.2% of the
| world's share in 2021.
|
| 2. Technical Performance: AI models have become more
| advanced, with the release of text-to-image models like
| DALL-E 2 and Stable Diffusion, text-to-video systems like
| Make-A-Video, and chatbots like ChatGPT. AI systems are
| increasing in complexity due to advancements in hardware,
| data availability, and larger model sizes.
|
| 3. Technical AI Ethics: In 2022, new ethics benchmarks and
| diagnostic metrics were introduced to address concerns about
| AI fairness, bias, and transparency. However, challenges
| remain in steering AI models to avoid harmful outcomes.
|
| 4. The Economy: AI hiring has grown in various countries,
| with Hong Kong experiencing the highest growth in 2022.
| Private investment in AI decreased for the first time in a
| decade, but AI remains a topic of interest for policymakers
| and industry leaders.
|
| 5. Education: The United States leads in AI-related
| postsecondary education, with a significant number of AI
| courses and programs offered at universities.
|
| 6. Policy and Governance: AI-related policymaking has
| increased, with the United States, Spain, and the Philippines
| leading in AI-related laws. Legal cases involving AI
| highlight the challenges and complexities of AI in the
| courts.
|
| 7. Public Perception: Men are more likely than women to
| report that AI products and services make their lives easier
| and trust companies that use AI. Surveyed Americans are most
| excited about AI's potential to make life and society better
| (31%) and save time and increase efficiency (13%).
|
| 8. AI Skills: The top AI skills include machine learning,
| natural language processing, data structures, computer
| vision, image processing, deep learning, TensorFlow, Pandas
| (software), and OpenCV.
|
| [0]: https://kagi.com/summarizer/index.html [1]: https://kagi
| .com/summarizer/index.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Faii...
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Execs won't read it until someone turns it into a 100-slide
| powerpoint and emails it to them.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| I hate how correct this is. LOL
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I've been told by multiple McKinsey people that execs won't
| read a god-damn thing unless it's, specifically, in a
| powerpoint deck. Typically never intended to be presented,
| even, often just these hideous walls of text copy-pasted
| into the deck then emailed around, often with tons and tons
| of slides.
|
| They made it clear they weren't joking, nor exaggerating. I
| have no idea how things got this way, nor why. Must be some
| kind of filter?
| wallfacer wrote:
| If the top ten takeaways are ok using incredibly vaporous, non-
| sensical phrasing why would I dig any deeper?
|
| "the number of AI incidents and controversies has increased 26
| times since 2012"
|
| Ok but how many "incidents," also detectably fake deepfakes and
| call-monitoring inmates are top examples of misuse? Naive.
|
| "BLOOM's training run emitted 25 times more carbon than a
| single air traveler on a one-way trip from New York to San
| Francisco"
|
| What does this mean? That sounds like a very small amount to me
| but the conclusion is that's a huge environmental impact. No, I
| read, for the carbon cost of decommissioning one old jet, we
| can have a new LLM.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| Not decommissioning one jet: just one fraction of a percent
| of one jet ride.
|
| Honestly seems like a good tradeoff.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| The utility of effective models (which can be used many
| times over) likely exceeds the utility of virtually any
| person travelling anywhere one time. That seems like a
| poorly thought statistic to mention. It makes me wonder if
| it's misunderstood or misinterpreted.
| bombcar wrote:
| Total passengers' CO2/journey (KG) 292.50 according to
| https://applications.icao.int/icec/Home/Index
|
| This is roughly a 400 mile car trip, or about a year of
| breathing.
| tomp wrote:
| Those are 100% not comparable metrics.
|
| What you breathe out is mostly what you eat, and most of
| the carbon there is part of a continuous carbon cycle. A
| part of it comes from fossil fuels, mainly transport and
| energy to power the Haber Bosch (the source of most of
| (organic) hydrogen in your body).
|
| LLM training process consumes practically _only_ energy.
| As such, it could very easily be replaced by carbon-
| neutral sources (nuclear, solar).
|
| All of the CO2 of a airplane flight comes from fossil
| fuels, and there is not viable technology to replace that
| yet.
| justsocrateasin wrote:
| not comparable from a climate change perspective, but
| helps put perspective into just how much CO2 that is. I
| disagree with you that it's unhelpful, context is always
| helpful.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| They are using it as an example but, if you take all of the
| training across all organizations it represents a huge carbon
| footprint due to training. Also, inference isn't exactly free
| either . Open sourcing your weights and putting them
| downloadable would get rid of that but on the other hand you
| have trade secrets that would make you not want to release
| your weights so inevitable another group will reproduce your
| weights and use more electricity.
| simonw wrote:
| I wonder how the carbon footprint of training every single
| large language model that exists today compares to the
| carbon footprint of a single day of global air traffic.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| That question is unanswerable so its weird to wonder
| about it...
| simonw wrote:
| Is it? I wonder about unanswerable questions all the
| time.
| pxc wrote:
| What's answerable isn't even clear in advance most of the
| time, for many scientific, philosophical, and
| mathematical questions! Questions that are not obviously
| answerable often turn out to be really productive,
| important, or interesting, too.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > BLOOM's training run emitted 25 times more carbon than a
| single air traveler on a one-way trip from New York to San
| Francisco
|
| Less than the cost to send the SF Giants to play the NY
| Yankees then?
|
| I wonder how many SF to NY carbon units Stanford expends each
| year to send their various sports teams out to do important
| work?
|
| This game is fun!
| malwrar wrote:
| I agree! So many more possibilities too, like for example
| rather than simply downloading and locally storing the
| movie Predator once I am forced to hunt down a provider who
| currently has it and stream it directly each time I want to
| watch it. Between google, the streaming provider, the cost
| of all the extra networking equipment required to support
| this data, and the extra cost on end-user devices
| themselves I wonder what the carbon cost of copyright is?
| dpflan wrote:
| Seems like a great opportunity to put a LLM interface in front of
| this report so readers and query it...
| fedeb95 wrote:
| the twitter summary is a bit garbage. Makes a lot of assumptions
| about the future, when all we really know is that recent
| developments take a huge leap. But that the trend will continue,
| or that it is even a trend, whatever that means in this context,
| is uncertain as every prediction. Is this a plateau? Will an even
| bigger development come, changing the game? Will AI close
| business forever after some unpredictable event? Nobody knows.
| animitronix wrote:
| Instantly becomes out of date
| b1c1jones wrote:
| How much was written by AI?
| alex_suzuki wrote:
| Unrelated to TFA: everytime I see numbers like 386, 486, etc. I'm
| instantly triggered. Even more than for powers of two. Growing up
| with computers really ,,does a number" on you.
| piinbinary wrote:
| Also numbers for display resolutions (640 and 480, 800 and 600,
| 1024 and 768, etc)
| hyperhopper wrote:
| What is significant about those numbers?
| etrautmann wrote:
| These were the designations for intel processors in the 90s.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| 1985 is when the 386 came out (286 in 1982, 8086/8088 was
| in the 70s)! 486 was 1989.
|
| Pentium (technically 586), released in 1993, is what I
| think of when I think of CPUs in the 90s. "n"86 has the
| 1980s association.
|
| Generational divide, here.
| etrautmann wrote:
| ah my apologies, as a child of the 90s, the 486 was just
| what I had in my house then.
| organsnyder wrote:
| 386 is an especially important milestone CPU, since it was
| the first CPU to offer a 32-bit mode in the Wintel space.
| elromulous wrote:
| Found the OG Mac user :)
| organsnyder wrote:
| Ha! I was actually a DOS user at the time, but I know it
| wasn't the only platform in existence.
| bena wrote:
| The original Intel processors that kicked off the personal
| computing revolution was the 8086. It itself was a variation
| on earlier chips, the 8008 and 8080.
|
| It took off and spawned its own line, the 80168, 80286, etc.
| Eventually, the 80 was dropped and they became known as the
| 286, 386, 486. Even the Pentium processor was really a brand
| name for the 586.
|
| Every Core i7 is an x86.
| dave78 wrote:
| Wow, I assumed those numbers were still universally
| recognized in tech, but I guess it makes sense that they're
| not anymore.
|
| Your question makes me feel old :)
| drooopy wrote:
| Same thing for me. For the past 30 years it feels like I'm
| seeing those numbers everywhere haha
| drybjed wrote:
| I have 386 as last digits of my phone number. Hardly anyone
| notices though.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| glad I wasn't the only one
| mysterydip wrote:
| My first thought was "was the page count intentional?"
| nsenifty wrote:
| My middle school enrollment number was 286. The number was
| significant because it was etched/embroidered/painted all over
| my belongings. A few years later they renumbered us all. I was
| a bit disappointed losing this number until I saw my new number
| - 640!
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> You should be in the US if you're starting an AI company
|
| This is the Tweet author's comment on a graph that shows the
| number of AI companies in different countries, rendered as a bar
| chart. The comment is a little cryptic -why would the number of
| AI companies in a country advise where you should start an AI
| company?
|
| So I figured I'd try to understand the comment by engaging in a
| bit of arbitrary, ad-hoc math. US: 542
| Everyone else: 160 + 99 + 73 + 57 + 47 + 44 + 41 + 36 + 32 + 26 +
| 23 + 22 + 12 + 12 = 684
|
| It turns out the US has fewer AI companies than the rest of the
| world put together!
|
| So I guess the logic was that, "you should be in the US if you're
| starting an AI company" because that's where you can expect the
| least competition.
|
| That sounds like solid advice!
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| If you look at it like working on AI in the USA will provide
| you the best density of AI workers, researchers, and resources,
| it makes a lot of sense.
|
| In terms of competition, evidently it's working out relatively
| well in the USA as there are enough people there to support
| nearly half the AI companies on earth. It appears to be a very
| fertile bed for growth in this sector.
|
| Further, most products will likely wind up online; there will
| not be much need for localized competition advantage outside of
| securing a team. The competition stage is largely a global
| market, online. You're best forming your company where you can
| hire people and collaborate with other people in your sector.
| That's ideally in the USA, so far.
| EntrePrescott wrote:
| I'm all with you about the principle i.e. that having the
| biggest number in a set (whether or not that number is even
| still minoritary by itself, though that does make the claim
| even more ridiculous) doesn't imply being the best let alone a
| necessity. Otherwise it would boil down to the classic "eat
| shit, billions of flies can't be wrong".
|
| That being said, there are actual factors for which the US
| might indeed plausibly be the best location choice specifically
| for most AI companies in the current hype context. For example
| funding:
|
| * while there is also some proportion of actually promising
| sustainable business models based on AI, the fact is that a
| very large proportion of AI companies are surfing on a
| hype/bubble and have somewhat of an exit strategy (e.g. being
| bought by some bigger player) but not a business model that
| would otherwise sustainably stand on its own feet.
|
| * the US is arguably indeed the best location for most high-
| risk ventures in need of big funding... including and
| especially so for hype/bubble surfers. Nowhere else can you
| find that much early investment money with such a willingness
| to take risks and to ride a hype/bubble. For most AI companies,
| the US as a location means they are able to raise more at a
| better (for the founders) valuation.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| As you say, there are advantages and disadvantages. What I
| don't see is how the bar chart in the tweet justifies the
| comment above it that "You should be in the US if you're
| starting an AI company". To be perfectly clear: it doesn't,
| and if one _should_ move to the US to start an AI company,
| then the numbers of AI companies already there wouldn 't
| really tell us why.
|
| The error is of the same kind as counting the number of
| papers published by a researcher, or an institution, or an
| entire country, as some kind of indication for the _quality_
| of the research in those papers.
|
| After all, if we just counted publications in AI journals,
| China, which is far ahead of all the rest of the world (with
| 39.87%, vs 10.03% of the US) would appear to be the leader in
| AI research. And that's according to Figure 1.1.11 in the
| report
|
| Here's a link to the report btw:
|
| https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/04/HAI_...
| MisterPea wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration
|
| I bet most of the startups in the US are concentrated in the
| SF/Bay Area. Would be stupid to go build something anywhere
| else in the US unless you already have a strong team/defined
| product.
| Aachen wrote:
| Is the page count really the most interesting thing to say about
| it?
| frozencell wrote:
| What else can you expect from a McKinsey alumni
| eastbayjake wrote:
| * alumnus
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Probably not. It's just that nobody can find the interesting
| bits, because they're buried in all those pages.
|
| Experiment: What does ChatGPT produce when you ask it for a
| 300-plus-page report? Is it better or worse than the average
| human-written report of similar size?
| jerf wrote:
| The GPT architecture can't really produce a 300+ page report
| right now, because that doesn't even come close to fitting
| within its window. Of course you can just keep running it and
| concatenating, but I wouldn't really call that a 300+ page
| report. It'll either wander off topic completely once it
| loses the prompt, or be very repetitive because it'll have no
| idea whatsoever what it said before its window.
|
| I gather that with the current architecture it becomes
| exponentially more difficult to grow the window, but I'm not
| sure if that's what a computer scientist would call
| "exponential" or if it was the common colloquial usage that
| calls x^2 "exponential growth"; would actually be interested
| if anyone could clarify that. With the current expense
| though, any of the common complexity classes beyond O(n log
| n) isn't very feasible at the moment though.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Attention used to be quadratic. But there have been linear
| attention advances. In fact, gpt-4 is almost certainly
| using some linear attention variant, maybe flash attention.
|
| Then there's this
| https://hazyresearch.stanford.edu/blog/2023-03-27-long-
| learn...
|
| I don't think a 300 page context window is too far away
| firatsarlar wrote:
| I believe LLMs could generate limitless page reports. Not a
| single prompt of course. Pick a topic, outline it, grow the
| outline with subsections. Use a generic summary and LLM
| indexing to feed context every time you want a subsection,
| if you want do not stop there use text to image to add
| drawings, you have 1000 pages thing. Yes, currently it is a
| thing not an article or research paper. Simple tool and
| intention relation.
| ModernMech wrote:
| You can prompt it for an outline, and then prompt it to go
| section by section. It's a lot more work than "write 300
| pages!"
|
| It's actually more like working with a junior copy editor
| that you have to constantly correct, so you keep wondering
| what you're even paying them for. But at $20 a month it's
| worth it for that.
| Aachen wrote:
| I don't get this sentiment. Check the summary if you don't
| want to read everything before submitting? Has OP even opened
| the thing to check the first page of contents? If it's good
| stuff, one would keep reading and be sad for it to end, no
| matter if it's 5 or 5000 pages (I was sad for book series to
| end that were longer than that).
|
| OP shouldn't have changed the report's title, or if this is
| the original title by some miracle, they should have changed
| it or posted a comment about why it's interesting. Presumably
| they did read at least part of it and have a reason for
| submitting it. As it is, the submission is entirely useless
| beyond pointing out that a certain URL exists.
| muzani wrote:
| The interesting one is East vs West. As a child, I remember some
| documentary saying that robotics development was ahead in
| China/Japan, because the East grew up on stories like Doraemon
| and Akira, while the West was resistant to it because of
| Terminator, The Matrix, Neuromancer, etc. The idea in the West is
| that AI is dangerous, while the East grew up with the idea of
| them as friends and leaders.
|
| This probably wasn't that true because obviously AI & robotics
| research is booming in the US.
|
| But I think the data hints that _consumer_ demand for AI and AGI
| might be significantly higher in China, etc. There was also the
| recent controversy around Midjourney banning Xi Jinping images
| lately, which suggests that they 're eyeing the Chinese consumer
| market.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > I remember some documentary saying that robotics development
| was ahead in China/Japan
|
| I also had this impression, especially after seeing demos of
| ASIMO. Looking back, ASIMO was always just a demo, Germany is a
| strong player in industrial robots, and Boston Dynamics is
| doing some very impressive demos. I have no idea who is/was
| actually ahead.
| evo_9 wrote:
| Summarization by ChatGPT: The AI Index Report 2023 provides
| insights into the latest developments and trends in artificial
| intelligence. Key takeaways include:
|
| 01 Industry now leads academia in releasing significant machine
| learning models. 02 Traditional benchmarks are showing
| performance saturation, but new benchmarks are emerging. 03 AI
| has both positive and negative environmental impacts. 04 AI is
| accelerating scientific progress in various fields. 05 Incidents
| concerning AI misuse are rapidly rising. 06 Demand for AI-related
| skills is increasing across most American industrial sectors. 07
| For the first time in a decade, year-over-year private investment
| in AI decreased in 2022. 08 While AI adoption by companies has
| plateaued, those that have adopted AI are experiencing cost and
| revenue benefits. 09 Policymaker interest in AI is growing, with
| more AI-related bills being passed into law. 10 Chinese citizens
| have the most positive view of AI products and services, while
| Americans are more skeptical.
| 7ero wrote:
| > Chinese citizens have the most positive view of AI products
| and services, while Americans are more skeptical.
|
| Is there a cultural reason for this?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| readers - you are invited to join me in downvoting each and
| every "ChaptGPT summary" of technical content, in any comments
| section, for the next .. 30 months..
| firatsarlar wrote:
| First of all, since I'm not a native speaker and my solid
| intention is communicate - not to be formal -, I've used
| chatGPT to fix my grammar errors. I even tried to mimic my
| voice - it started to use ya, ugh, ... - The paragraph you read
| is my instant English - may be enough, but I like clear
| communication, message should be understandable - So before
| downvote, keep these in mind.
|
| Two different summaries -I can't point them currently but one
| of them chatGPT, one of them a credible software- created by
| two distinct models. While it's not scientifically accurate to
| claim they are significantly different, there are noticeable
| differences between them. I'd like to use ChatGPT to compare
| these summaries, as I believe its contextualization
| capabilities could help clarify the situation. However, there
| are people who have strong opinions against using ChatGPT, and
| they criticize each other for doing so. This resistance is
| causing me frustration and holding me back from pursuing the
| comparison, which is a pain point for me.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-04 23:02 UTC)