[HN Gopher] We are beginning to roll out new voice and image cap...
___________________________________________________________________
We are beginning to roll out new voice and image capabilities in
ChatGPT
Author : ladino
Score : 982 points
Date : 2023-09-25 11:57 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| pc_edwin wrote:
| I just don't understand how they can package all of this for
| $20/m. Is compute really that cheap at scale?
|
| I also wonder how Apple (& Google) is going be able to provide
| this for free? I would love to be fly in the meetings they have
| about this, imagine all the innovators dilemma like discussions
| they'd be forced to have (we have to do this vs this will eat up
| our margins).
|
| This might be a little out there but I think Apple is making the
| correct move in letting the dust settle. Similar to how
| Zuckerberg burned $20 billion dollars for Apple to come out with
| Vision Pro, I see something similar playing out with Llama.
| Although this a low conviction take because software is Facebooks
| ballgame (hardware not so much).
| pavlov wrote:
| _> "I just don 't understand how they can package all of this
| for $20/m. Is compute really that cheap at scale?"_
|
| It's the same reason why an Uber in NYC used to cost $20 and
| now costs $80 for the same trip. Venture capital subventing
| market capture.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| I think answering lots of queries in parallel can be a lot
| cheaper than answering them one at a time.
| DrScientist wrote:
| It's quite possible they are charging near or below cost
| because they want your data....
|
| Imagine how much they would have to pay for testers at scale?
| fifteen1506 wrote:
| Probaby with Microsoft's money injection they're trying to raze
| the market and afterwards hike prices.
| reqo wrote:
| Compute is not cheap! I think it is well known (Altman himself
| has said this) that openAI is burning a lot of money currently,
| but they are fine for now considering the 10B investment from
| MSFT and the revenue from subscription and API. It's a critical
| moment for AI companies and openAI is trying to get as large a
| share of the market as they can by undercutting virtually any
| other commercial model and offering 10x the value.
| mordymoop wrote:
| Additionally, compute has the unique property of becoming
| cheaper per-unit at a rate that isn't comparable to any other
| commodity. GPT-4 itself gets cheaper to run the moment the
| next generation of chips comes out. Unlike, for example,
| Uber, the business environment and unit economics just
| naturally become more favorable the more time passes. By
| taking the lead in this space, they have secured mindshare
| which will actually increase in value with time as costs
| decline.
|
| Of course bigger (and thus more expensive-to-run) models will
| be released later, but I trust OAI to navigate that curve.
| siva7 wrote:
| It's not about generating profits. It's about being an
| existential threat to Google. MS will happily burn money.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Why worry about money when you have enough money in the bank to
| last until Judgement Day?
| moneywoes wrote:
| doesn't this kill a litany of chatgpt wrapper companies?
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Wait until they put ChatGPT into your Neuralink. at that point we
| are the singularity
| bkfh wrote:
| Does anyone know how they linked image recognition with an LLM to
| give such specific instructions as shown in the bike video on the
| website?
| HerculePoirot wrote:
| I don't know but GPT4 was multimodal from the beginning. They
| just delayed the release of its image processing abilities.
|
| > We've created GPT-4, the latest milestone in OpenAI's effort
| in scaling up deep learning. GPT-4 is a large multimodal model
| (accepting image and text inputs, emitting text outputs) that,
| while less capable than humans in many real-world scenarios,
| exhibits human-level performance on various professional and
| academic benchmarks.
|
| > March 14, 2023
|
| https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
| chrisjj wrote:
| Old hat. This was done in 2009.
|
| ;)
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Milo
|
| Milo had an AI structure that responded to human interactions,
| such as spoken word, gestures, or predefined actions in dynamic
| situations. The game relied on a procedural generation system
| which was constantly updating a built-in "dictionary" that was
| capable of matching key words in conversations with inherent
| voice-acting clips to simulate lifelike conversations. Molyneux
| claimed that the technology for the game was developed while
| working on Fable and Black & White.
| DrScientist wrote:
| Then Demis Hassabis ( Deepmind CEO ) probably worked on the
| tech while he was at LionHead as lead AI programmer on B&W.
| dwroberts wrote:
| Demis was only briefly at LH he went to found Elixir and made
| Revolution.
|
| I believe Richard Evans did the majority of AI in B&W, and he
| is also at DeepMind now though (assuming it is not just a
| person with the same name)
| chrisjj wrote:
| > made Revolution
|
| .... which fell far short of his claims, and bombed.
| DrScientist wrote:
| Ok - thanks.
| mmahemoff wrote:
| OpenAI's demo on the linked page stars a kitten named Milo.
| Easter egg?
| ushakov wrote:
| The picture feature would be amazing for tutorials. I can already
| imagine sending a photo of a synthesiser and asking ChatGPT to
| "turn the knobs" to make AI-generated presets
| boredemployee wrote:
| Man you're a genius. I was trying that uploading pdfs with
| manual of my synth and other stuff. With image that could be
| super easy.
| ilaksh wrote:
| I wonder how multimodal input and output will work with the chat
| API endpoints. I assume the messages array will contain URLs to
| an image, or maybe base64 encoded image data or something.
|
| Maybe it will not be called the Chat API but rather the
| Multimodal API.
| havnagiggle wrote:
| AIPI
| tdsone3 wrote:
| Are there already some rumors on when the multimodal API will
| be available?
| ilaksh wrote:
| The announcement says after the Plus rollout then it will go
| in the API.
| abi wrote:
| Where does it say that?
| og_kalu wrote:
| The TTS is better than Eleven Labs. It has a lot more of the
| narrative oomph (compare the intonation of the story and poem)
| even the best other models seem to lack.
|
| I really really hope this is available in more languages than
| English.
|
| Also Google, Where's Gemini ?
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| Now just throw this into a humanoid looking robot with fine motor
| skills and we are halfway to a dystopian hellscape that is now
| only years away instead of decades. What a time to be alive.
| dsign wrote:
| The humanoid-looking robot would make it more refined, no doubt
| about that, but all these applications can do without it:
|
| - Make it process customer-support requests.
|
| - Make a virtual nurse for when you call the clinic.
|
| - Make it process visa applications, particularly the part
| about interviews ("I know you weren't born back then, but I
| must ask. Did you support the Nazis in 1942? There is only one
| right answer and is not what you think!")
|
| - Make it do job interviews. How will you feel after the next
| recession, when you are searching for a job and spend the best
| part of a year doing leetcode interviews with "AI-interviewer"
| half-assedly grading your answers?
|
| - Make it flip burgers at McDonalds.
|
| - Make it process insurance claims and ask bobby-trap questions
| like "did the airline book you in a later trip? Yes? Was that
| the next day? Oh, that's bad. But, was it before 3:00 PM? Ah,
| well, you have no right to claim since you weren't delayed for
| more than 24 hours. Before you go, can you teach me which of
| these images depict objects you are willing to suck? If you do,
| I promise I'll be more 'human' next time."
|
| - Make it watch aggregated camera fees across cities around the
| world to see what that guy with the hat is up to.
|
| - Make some low-cost daleks to watch for trouble-makers at the
| concert, put the AI inside.
|
| In all cases, the pattern is not "AI is inherently devious and
| is coming for you, but "human trains devious AI and puts it in
| control to save costs".
| c_crank wrote:
| What would make it dystopian would be if this humanoid robot
| was then granted rights. As a servant, it could be useful.
| dhydcfsw wrote:
| Why shouldn't AI have rights? Because us humans have magical
| biology juice?
| c_crank wrote:
| Because that would come at the expense of making human
| lives better.
| civilitty wrote:
| I would like our future Cylon overlords to know that I had
| nothing to do with this!
| conception wrote:
| The Boston dynamics/openai collaboration for the apocalypse
| we've all been waiting for!
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| suyash wrote:
| This announcement seem to have killed so many startups that were
| trying to do multi-modal on top of ChatGPT. The way it's
| progressing with solving use cases with images and voice, not too
| far when it might be the 'one app to rule them all'.
|
| I can already see "Alexa/Siri/Google Home" replacement, "Google
| Image Search" replacement, ed-tech startups that were solving
| problems with AI using by taking a photo are also doomed and more
| to follow.
| _pdp_ wrote:
| There is still a lot to do.
| moneywoes wrote:
| any pertinent examples? i'm curious how they pivot
| codingdave wrote:
| Last I heard, OpenAI was losing massive amounts of money to run
| all this. Has that changed?
|
| Because past history shows that the first out of the gate is
| not the definitive winner much of the time. We aren't still
| using gopher. We aren't searching with altavista. We don't
| connect to the internet with AOL.
|
| AI is going to change many things. That is all the more reason
| to keep working on how best to make it work, not give up and
| assume that efforts are "doomed" just because someone else
| built a functional tool first.
| tessierashpool wrote:
| you're absolutely right.
|
| also, I did not know until today's thread that OpenAI's
| stated goal is building AGI. which is probably never going to
| happen, ever, no matter how good technology gets.
|
| which means yes, we are absolutely looking at AltaVista here,
| not Google, because if you subtract a cult from an innovative
| business, you might be able to produce a _profitable_
| business.
| captnObvious wrote:
| Why isn't AGI ever going to happen? Ever?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Those startups noting seeing this coming as a major risk is
| asking for it
| skissane wrote:
| > This announcement seem to have killed so many startups that
| were trying to do multi-modal on top of ChatGPT.
|
| Rather than die, why not just pivot to doing multi-modal on top
| of Llama 2 or some open source model or whatever? It wouldn't
| be a huge change
|
| A lot of businesses/governments/etc can't use OpenAI due to
| their own policies that prohibit sending their data to third
| party services. They'll pay for something they can run on-
| premise or in their own private cloud
| nunobrito wrote:
| It already replaced search engines. So much easier to write the
| question and explore the answers until it is solved.
| mmahemoff wrote:
| Took me a while to realise I can just type search queries
| into ChatGPT. e.g. simply "london bridge history" or whatever
| into the chat and not only get a complete answer, but I can
| ask it follow-up questions. And it's also personalised for
| the kinds of responses I want, thanks to the custom
| instructions setting.
|
| ChatGPT is my primary search engine now. (I just wish it
| would accept a URL query parameter so it could be launched
| straight from the browser address bar.)
| elicksaur wrote:
| Trying that example, I'd much prefer just going to the
| Wikipedia page on London Bridge than trying to guess what
| phrases ChatGPT will respond well to in order to elicit
| more info. It's initial response for me didn't even mention
| one of the most interesting facts that people lived and
| worked on the bridge.
| nunobrito wrote:
| YMMV. For my case on software development, I don't even
| look on stackoverflow anymore.
|
| Just type the tech question, start refining into what is
| needed and get a snippet of code tailored for what is
| needed. What previously would take 30 to 60 minutes of
| research and testing is now less than a couple of minutes.
| reitanqild wrote:
| And I don't have to wade through Stack Overflow and see
| all the times mods and others have tried to or succeeded
| in closing down very useful questions.
| aduitsis wrote:
| Fortunately it's not like StackOverflow has been used as
| training data for LLMs, right?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Well, yes. Point is, GPT-4 read the entire StackOverflow
| and then some, comprehended it, and now is a better
| interface to it, more specific and free of all the
| bullshit that's part of the regular web.
| devjab wrote:
| I know there are a lot of google programmers out there,
| but was using search engines for programming ever a good
| idea? Don't get me wrong, I'll look up how to do
| absolutely simple things every day but I basically always
| look in the official documentation.
|
| Which may be why I've been very underwhelmed by GPT so
| far. It's not terrible at programming, and it's certainly
| better than what I can find on Google, but it's not
| better than simply looking up how things work. I'm really
| curious as to why it hasn't put a more heavy weight on
| official documentation for its answers, they must've
| scraped that a long with all the other stuff, yet it'll
| give you absolutely horrible suggestions when the real
| answer must be in its dataset. Maybe that would be weird
| for less common things, but it's so terrible at
| JavaScript that it might even be able to write some of
| those StackOverflow answers if we're being satirical, and
| the entire documentation for that would've been very easy
| to flag as important.
| midasz wrote:
| Yes there are and it's infuriating. Colleague of mine had
| problems with integrating some code into an app that was
| built on a newer version of a framework because "there
| aren't a lot of examples yet". One web search and I found
| the frameworks own migration guide detailing the exact
| differences that would need to be accounted for.
| [deleted]
| layer8 wrote:
| This is funny, because I find it much less cumbersome to type
| a few search terms into a search engine and explore the links
| it spits out.
| mrits wrote:
| It depends on the subject but search engines are on the
| decline. With so many fake website written by AI I can only
| see it get worse.
|
| The most extreme I can think of is when I want to find when
| a show comes out and I have to read 10 paragraphs from 5
| different sites to realize no one knows.
| layer8 wrote:
| > The most extreme I can think of is when I want to find
| when a show comes out and I have to read 10 paragraphs
| from 5 different sites to realize no one knows.
|
| I found that you can be pretty sure no one knows if it's
| not already right on the results page. And if the
| displayed quote for a link on the results page is
| something like "wondering when show X is coming out?",
| then it's also a safe bet that clicking that link will be
| useless.
|
| You learn those patterns fast, and then the search is
| fast as well.
| mrits wrote:
| I don't disagree but having to have a learning phase for
| patterns sounds a bit like people clinging to an old way
| of things.
| jprete wrote:
| You mean like prompt engineering?
|
| What you're describing as "clinging to an old way of
| things" is how every single thing has been, ever, new or
| old.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's better to have a pattern than having no pattern with
| ChatGPT to tell when it's hallucinating or not.
|
| I _wish_ MLs were more useful than search engines, but
| they have still a long way to go to replace them (if they
| ever do).
| xdennis wrote:
| > The most extreme I can think of is when I want to find
| when a show comes out
|
| Yeah, I find that queries which can be answered in a
| sentence are the worst to find answers from search
| engines because all the results lengthen the response to
| an entire article, even when there isn't an answer.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| agreed on that antipattern although fwiw chatgpt is
| unlikely to know the answer for questions like these
| either.
| suyash wrote:
| who would have thought that few years ago, just goes to show
| that a Giant like Google is also susceptible when they stop
| innovating. The real battle is going to be fought between
| these two as Google's business is majorly dependent on search
| ads.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| It rather created new hybrid search engines, like perplexity
| and phind.
| adr1an wrote:
| True. Although the training is on a snapshot of websites,
| including q&a like stackoverflow. If these were replaced too,
| where are we heading? We'll have to wait and see. One concern
| would be centralization/ lack of options and diversity.
| Stackoverflow started rolling AI on its own, despite the
| controversial way it did (dismissing long time contributors);
| it might be correctly following the trend.
| silon42 wrote:
| Personally I prefer stackoverflow and such, because I can
| see different answer including wrong or non-applicable ones
| which don't solve my exact problem.
| nunobrito wrote:
| One site doesn't need to exclude the other.
|
| Both have their uses.
| JTon wrote:
| Agreed except ChatGPT (3.5 at least, haven't tried 4) is
| unable to provide primary sources for its results. At least
| when I tried, it just provided hallucinated urls
| mhb wrote:
| Try it. There's a world of difference.
| JTon wrote:
| In general or for this specific application (linking
| primary sources)?
| mhb wrote:
| In general. I don't know whether it's better at providing
| sources.
| jve wrote:
| Bing Chat for me, when mostly searching IT technical or
| programming stuff sometimes gives junk urls, sometimes
| gives some real valuable urls.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| i love gpt-4 and i find chatgpt useless. so there is a big
| difference
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Talking to Google and Siri has been positively frustrating this
| year. On long solo drives, I just want to have a conversation
| to learn about random things. I've been itching to "talk" to
| chatGPT and learn more (french | music theory | history | math
| | whatever) all summer. This should hit the spot!
| chankstein38 wrote:
| I've wanted a ChatGPT Pod equivalent to a Google Home pod for
| a while! I have been intending to build it at some point. I
| am with you, talking to Google sucks.
|
| "Hey Google, why do ____ happen?" "I'm sorry, I don't know
| anything about that"
|
| But you're GOOGLE! Google it! What the heck lol
|
| So yeah, ChatGPT being able to hear what I say and give me
| info about it would be great! My holdup has been wakewords.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| I assume you have never heard of podcasts.
| subw00f wrote:
| I'm sure one can talk to their podcasts, but I would be
| worried if they ever answered me back.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| you can ask podcasts questions? and they answer you?
| jgalt212 wrote:
| no, but they don't get the answer wrong 20% of the time
| and give off 100% correctness vibes.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| No, generally podcasts are far worse than that...
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| neither does a tuba.
|
| why be mad at a hammer if you hit your thumb with it?
| bilsbie wrote:
| It's funny. Driving buddy has been my number one use case for
| a while now.
|
| Still can't quite make it work. I feel like I could learn a
| lot if I could have random conversations with GPT.
|
| + bonus if someone else in the car got excited when I see
| cows. Don't care if it's an AI.
| jibe wrote:
| Try Pi AI. They have an app that can be voice/audio driven.
| Works well for the driving buddy scenario.
|
| https://pi.ai/talk
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| you could have a simulation of learning a lot by chatting
| with GPT, why you would take it as truth without an equal
| portion of salt is beyond me
| ecshafer wrote:
| Voice assistants have always been a half complete product.
| They were shown off as a cool feature, then they were never
| integrated so they were useful.
|
| The two biggest features I want are for the voice assistants
| to read something for me, and to do something on google/Apple
| Maps hand free. Neither of these ever work. "Siri/ ok google
| add the next gas station on the route" or "take me to the
| Chinese restaurant in Hoboken" seem like very obvious
| features for a voice assistant with a map program.
|
| The other is why can I tell Siri to bring up the Wikipedia
| page for George Washington but I can't have Siri read it to
| me? I am in the car, they know that, they just say "I can't
| show you that while you're driving". The response should be
| "do you want me to read it to you?"
| Gunnerhead wrote:
| In the current world:
|
| Me: "OK Google, take me to the Chinese restaurant in
| Hoboken"
|
| Google Assistant: "Calling Jessica Hobkin".
| dieselgate wrote:
| This reminds me of ordering at a drive through with a
| human at times:
|
| "I'd like an iced tea" "An icee?" "No an iced tea"
| "Hi-C?"
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| You forgot the third brand name.
|
| The pattern for current world's voice assistants is:
| ${brand 1}, ${action} ${brand 2} ${joiner} ${brand 3}.
|
| So, "OK Google, take me to Chinese restaurant in Hoboken
| using Google Maps".
|
| Which is why I refuse to use this technology until the
| world gets its shit together.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> ok google add the next gas station on the route_
|
| I say "ok google, add a stop for gas" a lot, and it works
| well for me.
| throeaaysn wrote:
| These are supposed to be voice assistants and we don't
| communicate that way.
|
| If you were riding with someone, you could say "hey,
| let's stop at X on the way?"
|
| Voice assistants today require you to conform to an
| unknown strict protocol that only works if you say the
| right words in the right order. I prefer to avoid the
| frustration.
|
| Just today I asked it about a historical figure "hey
| Google, who was X?" and it replied. I was shocked and
| felt lucky so I asked "What is ChatGPT?" and it gave me
| the usual response "sorry, I didn't understand".
| Seriously, you didn't understand? It could have said
| something like I couldn't find it in my search results
| (odd but okay), or that it can't look it up online, etc.
|
| I have to say "asian restaurant" and it finds a bunch of
| places (many aren't asian at all). But if I say "hey
| Google, what are the Asian restaurants near neighborhood
| X with 4 stars or more?" it craps its pants hard.... even
| though Google Search is totally capable of answering that
| question.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| I still don't understand how you can talk to something that
| doesn't provide factual information and just take it at face
| value?
|
| The other day I asked it about the place I live and it made
| up nonsense, I was trying to get it to help me with an essay
| and it was just wrong, it was telling me things about this
| region that weren't real.
|
| Do we just drive through a town, ask for a made up history
| about it and just be satisfied with whatever is provided?
| jocaal wrote:
| > ...talk to something that doesn't provide factual
| information and...
|
| Ah yes, I dont understand how to talk to people either!
| bamboozled wrote:
| I always thought a better future would be full of more
| and more distilled, accurate, useful knowledge and
| truthful people to promote that.
|
| Comments like yours make me think that no one cares about
| this...and judging by a lot of the other comments, I
| guess they don't.
|
| Probably going to be people, wading through a sea of AI
| generated shit, and the individual is supposed to just
| forever "apply critical thinking" to it all. Even a call
| from ones spouse could be fake, and you'll just have to
| apply critical thinking or whatever to workout if you
| were scammed or not.
| astrange wrote:
| There aren't any real world sources of truth you can
| avoid applying critical thinking to. Much published
| research is false, and when it isn't, you need to know
| when it's expired or what context it's valid in.
| [deleted]
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| This is a fairly perpetual discussion, but I'll go for
| another round:
|
| I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15 years
| ago - you get a feel for getting results you want.
|
| I'd never use chatGPT for anything that's even remotely
| obscure, controversial, or niche.
|
| But through all my double-checking, I've had phenomenal
| success rate in getting useful, readable, valid responses
| to well-covered / documented topics such as introductory
| french, introductory music theory, well-covered & non-
| controversial history and science.
|
| I'd love to see the example you experienced; if I ask
| chatGPT "tell me about Toronto, Canada", my expectation
| would be to get high accuracy. If I asked it "Was Hum,
| Croatia, part of the Istrian liberation movement in the
| seventies", I'd have far less confidence - it's a leading
| question, on a less covered topic, introducing inaccuracies
| in the prompt.
|
| My point is - for a 3 hour drive to cottage, I'm OK with
| something that's only 95% accurate on easy topics! I'd get
| no better from my spouse or best friend if they made it on
| the same drive :). My life will not depend on it, I'll have
| an educationally good time and miles will pass faster :).
|
| (also, these conversations always seem to end in
| suffocatingly self-righteous "I don't know how others can
| live in this post-fact free world of ignorance", but that
| has a LOT of assumptions and, ironically, non-factual bias
| in it as well)
| doug_durham wrote:
| Exactly this! This is my experience also. Your point
| about "well covered & non-controversial" is spot on. I
| know not to expect great results when asking about topics
| that have very little coverage. To be honest I wouldn't
| expect to go to an arbitrary human and get solid answers
| on a little covered topic, unless that person just
| happened to be topic expert. There is so much value in
| having the basics to intermediate levels of topics
| covered in a reliable way. That's where most of
| commercial activity occurs.
| jabradoodle wrote:
| I think a key difference is that humans very rarely sound
| convincing talking about subjects they have no clue
| about.
|
| I've seen the hallucination rate of LLMs improve
| significantly, if you stick to well covered topics they
| probably do quite well. The issue is they often have no
| tells when making things up.
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| > I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15
| years ago - you get a feel for getting results you want.
|
| I don't think it's quite the same.
|
| With search results, aka web sites, you can compare
| between them and get a "majority opinion" if you have
| doubts - it doesn't guarantee correctness but it does
| improve the odds.
|
| Some sites are also more reputable and reliable than
| others - e.g. if the information is from Reuters, a
| university's courseware, official government agencies,
| ... etc. it's probably correct.
|
| With LLMs you get one answer and that's it - although
| some like Bard provide alternate drafts but they are all
| from the same source and can all be hallucinations ...
| og_kalu wrote:
| >although some like Bard provide alternate drafts but
| they are all from the same source and can all be
| hallucinations ...
|
| Yes and no. If the LLM is repeating the same thing on
| multiple drafts then it's very unlikely to be a
| hallucination.
|
| It's when multiple generations are all saying different
| things that you need to take notice.
|
| LLMs hallucinate yes but getting the same hallucination
| multiple times is incredibly rare.
| rickspencer3 wrote:
| In my experience, LLVMs are not about being provided facts.
| They are about synthesizing new content and insights based
| on the model and inputs.
|
| Rather than asking it about facts, I find it useful to
| derive new insights.
|
| For example: "Tell me 5 topics about databases that might
| make it to the front page of hacker news." It can generate
| an interesting list. That is much more like the example
| they provided in the article, synthesizing a bed time story
| is not factual.
|
| Also, "write me some python code to do x" where x is based
| on libraries that were well documented before 2022 also has
| similarly creative results in my experience.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| Because it doesn't always make up stuff. Because I'm a
| human and can ask for more information. I don't want an
| encyclopedia on a podcast. I want to "talk" to someone
| about stuff. Not have an enumerated list of truths
| firehosed at me.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| A human driving buddy can make up a lot of stuff too. Have
| an interesting conversation but don't take it too
| seriously. If you're really researching something serious
| then take a mental note to double check things later,
| pretend as if you're talking to a semi-reliable human who
| knows a lot but occasionally makes mistakes.
| mmahemoff wrote:
| I'm curious if you're using GPT-4 ($)? I find a lot of the
| criticisms about hallucination come from users who aren't,
| and my experience with GPT-4 is it's _far_ less likely to
| make stuff up. Does it know all the answers, certainly not,
| but it 's self-aware enough to say sorry I don't know
| instead of making a wild guess.
| elicksaur wrote:
| Why would anyone pay for something if the free trial
| doesn't work? "Hey, you know how we gave you a product
| that doesn't quit work as you expect and is super
| frustrating? Just pay us money, and we'll give you the
| same product, but it just works. Just trust us!"
| sacred_numbers wrote:
| GPT-4 is not the same product. I know it seems like it
| due to the way they position 3.5 and 4 on the same page,
| but they are really quite separate things. When I signed
| up for ChatGPT plus I didn't even bother using 3.5
| because I knew it would be inferior. I still have only
| used it a handful of times. GPT-4 is just so much farther
| ahead that using 3.5 is just a waste of time.
| elicksaur wrote:
| Would you mind sharing some threads where you thought
| ChatGPT was useful? These discussions always feel like
| I'm living on a different planet with a different
| implementation of large language models than others who
| claim they're great. The problems I run into seem to stem
| from the fundamental nature of this class of products.
| michaelt wrote:
| The usefulness of ChatGPT is a bit situational, in my
| experience. But in the right situations it can be pretty
| powerful.
|
| Take a look at https://chat.openai.com/share/41bdb053-fac
| d-448b-b446-1ba1f1... for example.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| A great example. Here's a similar one from me: https://cl
| oud.typingmind.com/share/d2000ffc-a1bf-4b71-b59d-c....
|
| Context: had a bunch of photos and videos I wanted to
| share with a colleague, without uploading them to any
| cloud. I asked GPT-4 to write me a trivial single-page
| gallery that doesn't look like crap, feeding it the
| output of `ls -l` on the media directory, got it on first
| shot, copy-pasted and uploaded the whole bundle to a
| personal server - all in few minutes. It took maybe 15
| minutes from _the idea of doing it_ first occurring to
| me, to a private link I could share.
|
| I have plenty more of those touching C++, Emacs Lisp,
| Python, generating vCARD and iCalendar files out of blobs
| of hastily-retyped or copy-pasted text, etc. The common
| thread here is: one-off, ad-hoc requests, usually
| underspecified. GPT-4 is quite good at being a _fully
| generic_ tool for one-off jobs. This is something that
| _never existed before_ , except in form of delegating a
| task to another human.
| astrange wrote:
| I agree that none of the problems people have mentioned
| above happen with GPT4.
|
| It used to be more reliable when web browsing worked, but
| it's still pretty reliable.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| You can also prompt it to hold back if it doesn't know,
| which seems to make a difference. It's part of my default
| prompt, and since I added it I haven't had any overt
| hallucinations. Definitely invalid code, but not due to
| crazy errors. Just syntax and inconsistent naming mostly.
|
| I verify just about everything that I ask it, so it isn't
| just a general sense of improvement.
| bilsbie wrote:
| > I still don't understand how you can talk to something
| that doesn't provide factual information and just take it
| at face value?
|
| All human interactions from all of history called and they
| ...
| londons_explore wrote:
| Pay for the Plus version.
|
| Then it makes stuff up far less frequently.
|
| If the next version has the same step up in performance, I
| will no longer consider inaccuracy an issue - even the best
| books have mistakes in them, they just need to be
| infrequent enough.
| nerdbert wrote:
| > Pay for the Plus version.
|
| > Then it makes stuff up far less frequently.
|
| Now there's a business model for a ChatGPT-like service.
|
| $1/month: Almost always wrong
|
| $10/month: 50/50 chance of being right or wrong
|
| $100/month: right 95% of the time
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| You make it sound like business shenanigans, but the
| truth is, it's a natural fit for now, as performance of
| LLMs improves with their size, but costs of training (up-
| front investment) and inference (marginal, per-query)
| also go up.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Are you using 3.5 or 4?
| skepticATX wrote:
| What LLMs have made me realize more than anything is that
| we just don't care that much the information we receive
| being completely factual.
|
| I have tried to use it many times to learn a topic, and my
| experience has been that it is either frustratingly vague
| or incorrect.
|
| It's not a tool that I can completely add to my workflow
| until it is reliable, but I seem to be the odd one out.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| ChatGPT 3.5 is terrible on technical subjects IME. Phind
| is best for me rn. Hugging Chat (Llama) works quite well
| too.
|
| They're only good on universal truths. An amalgam of laws
| from around the globe doesn't tell me what the law is in
| my country, for example.
| bamboozled wrote:
| > What LLMs have made me realize more than anything is
| that we just don't care that much the information we
| receive being completely factual.
|
| I find this highly concerning but I feel similar.
|
| Even "smart people" I work with seem to have gulped down
| the LLM cool aid because it's convenient and it's "cool".
|
| Sometimes I honestly think: "just surrender to it all,
| believe in all the machine tells you unquestionably,
| forget the fact checking, it feels good to be ignorant...
| it will be fine...".
|
| I just can't do it though.
| flkenosad wrote:
| The smart people I've seen using ChatGPT always double
| check the facts it gives. However, the truth is that RLHF
| works well to extinguish these lies over time. As more
| people use the platform and give feedback, the thing gets
| better. And now, I find it to be pretty darn accurate.
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| > The smart people I've seen using ChatGPT always double
| check the facts it gives.
|
| I don't like being told lies in the first place and
| having to unlearn it.
|
| It doesn't help that I might as well have just gone
| straight to the "verification" instead.
| macNchz wrote:
| I see this conversation pretty frequently and I think the
| root of it lies in the fact that we have mental
| heuristics for determining whether we need to fact check
| another human because they are a bullshitter, an idiot, a
| charlatan etc, but most people haven't really developed
| this sense for AIs.
|
| I think the current state of AI trustworthiness ("very
| impressive and often accurate but occasionally extremely
| wrong") triggers similar mental pathways to interacting
| with a true sociopath or pathological liar for the first
| time in real life, which can be intensely disorienting
| and cause one to question their trust in everyone else,
| as they try to comprehend this type of person.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| I don't know. The other day I was asking about a biology
| topic and it straight up gave me a self-contradicting
| chemical reaction process description. It kept doing that
| after I pointed out the contradiction. Eventually I got
| out of this hallucination loop by resetting the
| conversation and asking again.
|
| It's smart but can also be very dumb.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I just verify the information I need. I find it useful as
| a sort of search engine for solutions. Like, how could I
| use generators as hierarchical state machines? Are there
| other approaches that would work? What are some issues
| with these solutions? Etc. By the end I have enough
| information to begin searching the web for comparisons,
| other solutions, and so on.
|
| The benefit is that I got a quick look at various
| solutions and quickly satisfied a curiosity, and decided
| if I'm interested in the concept or not. Without AI, I
| might just leave the idea alone or spend too much time
| figuring it out. Or perhaps never quite figure out the
| terms of what I'm trying to discover, as it's good at
| connecting dots when you have an idea with some missing
| pieces.
|
| I wouldn't use it for a conversation about things as
| others are describing. I need a way to verify its output
| at any time. I find that idea bizarre. Just chatting with
| a hallucinating machine. Yet I still find it useful as a
| sort of "idea machine".
| bamboozled wrote:
| I think this is a fine use case though because you're
| doing your due diligence. The problems arise when you
| don't do this.
|
| I think even if an AGI was created, and humans survived
| this event. I'd still have trouble trusting it.
|
| The quote "trust but verify" is everything to me.
| thfuran wrote:
| Ignorance is Strength
| huijzer wrote:
| > just surrender to it all, believe in all the machine
| tells you unquestionably, forget the fact checking, it
| feels good to be ignorant... it will be fine...
|
| It's the same issue with Google Search, any web page, or,
| heck, any book. Fact checking gets you only so far. You
| need critical thinking. It's okay to "learn" wrong facts
| from time to time as long as you are willing to be
| critical and throw the ideas away if they turn out to be
| wrong. I think this Popperian view is much more useful
| than living with the idea that you can only accept
| information that is provably true. Life is too short to
| verify every fact. Most things outside programming are
| not even verifiable anyway. By the time that Steve Jobs
| would have "verified" that the iPhone was certainly a
| good idea to pursue, Apple might have been bankrupt. Or
| in the old days, by the time you have verified that there
| is a tiger in the bush, it has already eaten you.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| There's a lot of truth in this comment and a lot that I
| wholeheartedly agree with.
|
| When I spend time on something that turns out to be
| incorrect, I would prefer it to be because of choice I
| made instead of some random choice made by an LLM. Maybe
| the author is someone I'm interested in, maybe there's
| value in understanding other sides of the issue, etc.
| When I learn something erroneous from an LLM, all I know
| is that the LLM told me.
| DharmaPolice wrote:
| The issue is far more serious with ChatGPT/similar models
| because things that are laughably untrue are delivered
| exactly the same as something that's solidly true. When
| doing a normal search I can make some assessment on the
| quality of the source and the likelihood the source is
| wrong.
|
| People should be able "throw the ideas away if they turn
| out to be wrong" but the problem is these ideas
| unconsciously or not help build your model of the world.
| Once you find out something isn't true it's hard to
| unpick your mental model of the world.
| huijzer wrote:
| > Once you find out something isn't true it's hard to
| unpick your mental model of the world.
|
| Intuitively, I would think the same, but a book about
| education research that I read and my own experience
| taught me that new information is surprisingly easy to
| unlearn. It's probably because new information sits at
| the edges of your neural networks and do not yet provide
| a foundation for other knowledge. This will only happen
| if the knowledge stands the test of time (which is
| exactly how it should be according to Popper). If a
| counterexample is found, then the information can easily
| be discarded since it's not foundational anyway and the
| brain learns the counterexample too (the brain is very
| good in remembering surprising things).
| [deleted]
| uoaei wrote:
| I think this post-factual attitude is stronger and more
| common in some cultures than others. I'm afraid to say
| but given my extensive travels it appears American
| culture (and its derivatives in other countries) seems to
| be spearheading this shift.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Warning, my opinion ahead:
|
| I think it's because Americans, more than nearly all
| other cultures, love convenience. It's why the love for
| driving is so strong in the US. Don't walk or ride,
| drive.
|
| Once I was walking back from the grocer in Florida with 4
| shopping bags, and people pulled over and asked if my car
| had broken down and if I needed a ride, people were
| stunned...I was walking for exercise and for the
| environment...and I was stunned.
|
| More evidence of this trend can be seen in the products
| and marketing being produced:
|
| Do you need to write a wedding speech? Click here.
|
| Do you need to go get something from the store? get your
| fat ass in the car and drive, better yet, get a car that
| drives for you? Better than this, we'll deliver it with a
| drone...don't move a muscle.
|
| Don't want to do your homework? Here...
|
| Want to produce art? Please enter your prompt...
|
| Want to lose weight? We have a drug for that...
|
| Want to be the authority on some topic? We'll generate
| the facts you need.
| gtowey wrote:
| I agree with this, but I think there is a deeper level
| which explains this. And that is convenience is a
| _product_. The thing that truly defines how corporations
| in America have shaped our culture is that everything is
| turned into a way to sell you something.
| uoaei wrote:
| I've also identified convenience as a core factor.
| Another dynamic at play is this:
|
| As convenience in a domain becomes ubiquitous or at least
| expected among consumers, they quickly readjust their
| evaluation of "having time for X" around the new
| expectation of the convenient service, treating all
| alternatives as positive opportunity cost. This would
| explain a lot of those folks who are upset when it's
| suggested that they don't need Amazon, Instacart, etc. in
| their lives if they are to do something about their
| contributions to mass labor exploitation.
|
| Of course these conveniences quickly become ubiquitous in
| large economies with a glut of disposable income, which
| encourages VCs to dump money into these enterprises so
| they're first to market, and also to encourage the public
| to believe that the future is already here and there's no
| reason to worry about backsliding or sustainability of
| the business model. Yet in every single case we see
| prices eventually rise, laborers squeezed, etc. A
| critical mass of people haven't yet acknowledged this
| inevitability, in no small part due to this fixation on
| convenience at the expense of more objective, reasoned
| understandings (read: post-truth mindset).
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| > It's not a tool that I can completely add to my
| workflow until it is reliable, but I seem to be the odd
| one out.
|
| This. I hate being told the wrong information because I
| will have to unlearn the wrong information. I would
| rather have been told nothing.
| xnorswap wrote:
| > how you can talk to something that doesn't provide
| factual information and just take it at face value
|
| Like talking to most people you mean?
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| When OpenAI buys me a drink at the bar in exchange for
| the rubbish it produces, I might have a more favourable
| view.
| ilaksh wrote:
| As soon as they release the API, we can build an AI
| "bartender". Combine the voice output and input with NeRF
| talking heads such as from Diarupt or
| https://github.com/harlanhong/awesome-talking-head-
| generatio....
|
| You will now be able to feed it images and responses of
| the customers. Give it a function to call
| complementaryDrink(customerId) Combine it with a simple
| vending machine style robot or something more complex
| that can mix drinks.
|
| I'm not actually in a hurry to try to replace bartenders.
| Just saying these types of things immediately become more
| feasible.
|
| You can also see the possibilities of the speech input
| and output for "virtual girlfriends". I assume someone at
| OpenAI must have been tempted to train a model on
| Scarlett Johansson's voice.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Hopefully people know not to ask others for factual
| information (unless it's an area they're actually well
| educated/knowledgeable in), but for opinions and
| subjective viewpoints. "How's your day going", "How are
| you feeling", "What did you think of X", etc, not "So
| what was the deal with the Hundred Year's War?" or
| whatever.
|
| If people are treating LLMs like a random stranger and
| only making small talk, fair enough, but more often
| they're treating it like an inerrable font of knowledge,
| and that's concerning.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _If people are treating LLMs like a random stranger and
| only making small talk, fair enough, but more often they
| 're treating it like an inerrable font of knowledge, and
| that's concerning._
|
| That's on them. I mean, people need to figure out that
| LLMs aren't random strangers, they're unfiltered inner
| voices of random strangers, spouting the first reaction
| they have to what you say to them.
|
| Anyway, there is a middle ground. I like to ask GPT-4
| questions _within my area of expertise_ , because I'm
| able to instantly and instinctively - read: effortlessly
| - judge how much to trust any given reply. It's very
| useful this way, because rating an answer in your own
| field takes much less work than coming up with it on your
| own.
| graemep wrote:
| No individual is "most people". Most of the time I spend
| talking to people in real life is with people whose
| professional expertise, hobbies, and other sources of
| knowledge I know at least roughly. I have an idea how
| good they are at evaluating what they know and how honest
| they and whether they are prone to wishful thinking.
| whack wrote:
| Joe Rogan has made tons of money off talking without
| providing factual information. Hollywood has also made tons
| of money off movies "inspired by real events" that
| hallucinate key facts relevant to the movie's plot and
| characters. There's a huge market for infotainment that is
| "inspired by facts" but doesn't even try to be accurate.
| absrec wrote:
| You listen to Joe Rogan with the idea that this is a
| normal dude talking not an expert beyond martial arts and
| comedy.
|
| A person who uses ChatGPT must have the understanding
| that it's not like Google search. The layman, however,
| has no idea that ChatGPT can give coherent incorrect
| information and treats the information as true.
|
| Most people won't use it for infotainment and OpenAI will
| try its best to downplay the hallucination as fine print
| if it goes fully mainstream like google search.
| flkenosad wrote:
| Give people more credit. If you're using an AI these
| days, you have to know it hallucinates sometimes. There's
| even a warning about it when you log in.
| absrec wrote:
| I'll give tech people credit, but non-tech people I'm not
| so sure. A good example is the cookie permissions or app
| permissions. A great number of non-tech people don't even
| know or care what they mean.
| flkenosad wrote:
| You gotta stop bucketting people like that. People may
| not know terms "cookie permissions" or "app permissions"
| but they sure as fuck understand the idea of user
| tracking or handing a company access to your mic/camera.
| And to say they don't care about these things is simply
| not true.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| There's a contingent of the population passing videos
| around on tiktok genuinely concerned that AIs have a mind
| of their own
|
| no I will not give the public credit, most people have no
| grounding to discern wtf a language model is and what
| it's doing, all they know is computers didn't use to talk
| and now they do
| layer8 wrote:
| If that's your benchmark, I don't want your AI.
| agentultra wrote:
| OpenAI isn't marketing ChatGPT as, "infotainment."
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| now that you mention it, a big "for entertainment
| purposes only" banner like they use to have on all the
| psychic commercials on tv would not be inappropriate.
| it's incredible that LLMs are being marketed as general
| purpose assistants with a tiny asterisk, "may contain
| inaccuracies" like it's a walnut contamination
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Not sure what's being incredible here. GPT-4 is a stellar
| general-purpose assistant, that shines when you stop
| treating it as encyclopedia, and start using it as an
| _assistant_. That is, give it tasks, like summarizing, or
| writing code, or explaining code, or rewriting prose. Ask
| for suggestions, ideas. You can do that to great effect,
| even when your requests are underspecified and somewhat
| confused, and it still works.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I just wish they were advertised for generative tasks and
| not retrieval tasks. It's not intelligence, it's not
| reasoning, it's text transformation.
|
| It seems to be able to speak on history, sometimes it's
| even right, so there's a use case that people expect from
| it.
|
| FYI I've used GPT4 and Claude 2 for hundreds of
| conversations, I understand what its good and bad at; I
| don't trust that the general public is being given a
| realistic view.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Wait until you learn about the mainstream media.
| flangola7 wrote:
| Rogan is literally the largest podcast on the Spotify.
| It's the definition of mainstream.
| bamboozled wrote:
| For a certain demographic and generation, Joe Rogan _is_
| the mainstream media.
| [deleted]
| archon wrote:
| Agreed. After using ChatGPT at all Siri is absolutely
| frustrating.
|
| Example from a couple days ago:
|
| Me, in the shower so not able to type: "Hey Siri, add 1.5
| inch brad nails to my latest shopping list note."
|
| Siri: "Sorry, I can't help with that."
|
| ... Really, Siri? You can't do something as simple as add a
| line to a note in the first-party Apple Notes app?
| callalex wrote:
| That's extra frustrating because Siri absolutely had that
| functionality at some point in the past, and may even still
| have it if you say the right incantation. Those
| incantations change in unpredictable and unknowable ways
| though.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| appending to a text file, what do you think this is - unix?
| rubslopes wrote:
| I've replaced my voice google assistant searches with the
| voice feature of the Bing app. It's a night and day
| difference. Bing voice is what I always expected from an AI
| companion of the future, it is just lacking commands --
| setting tasks, home automation, etc.
| bytefactory wrote:
| Did you find a way to do this seamlessly including being
| able to say something like "Hey Bing", or do you just have
| a shortcut or widget for this?
| 3c0 wrote:
| precisely this. once someone figures out how to get
| something like GPT integrated with actual products like
| smart home devices and the same access levels as
| siri/google assistant, it will be the true voice assistant
| experience everyone has wanted.
| com2kid wrote:
| My prediction on this is eventually the LLMs will just
| write and execute scripts directly to control things.
|
| Imagine if iOS had something like apple script and all
| apps exposed and documented endpoints. LLMs would be able
| to trivially solve problems that the best voice
| assistants today cannot handle.
|
| Then again none of the current assistants can handle all
| that much. "Send Alex P a meeting invite tomorrow for a
| playdate at the Zoo, he's from out of town so include the
| Zoo's full address in the invite".
|
| "Find the next mutual free slot on the team's calendar
| and send out an invite for a zoom meeting at that time".
|
| These are all things that voice assistants should have
| been doing a decade ago, but I presume they'd have
| required too much one off investment.
|
| Give an LLM proper API access and train it on some
| example code, and these problems are easy for it to
| solve. Heck I bet if you do enough specialized training
| you could get one of the tiny simple LLMs to do it.
| throeaaysn wrote:
| Alexa is supposedly adding "human-like voice" soon, which
| I can only assume "LLMs with plugins"
| wccrawford wrote:
| I got sick of searching Google for in-game recipes for
| Disney Dreamlight because most of the results are a bunch
| of pointless text, and then finally the recipe hidden in it
| somewhere.
|
| I used Bing yesterday and it was able to parse out exactly
| what I wanted, and then give me idiot-proof steps to making
| the recipe in-game. (I didn't need the steps, but it gave
| me what I wanted up front, easily.) I tried it twice and it
| was awesome both times. I'll definitely be using it in the
| future.
| a_vanderbilt wrote:
| It almost sounds like their assistant and their search
| engine have the same problem! Years of SEO optimized
| garbage has polluted search and the data streams it feeds
| to their other products. I have a concern that soon the
| mess will turn into AI-optimized trash, with what is
| essentially data poisoning to get the AI to shovel the
| fake content instead.
| Jensson wrote:
| > I got sick of searching Google for in-game recipes for
| Disney Dreamlight
|
| You mean these? Took me a few seconds to find, not sure
| how an LLM would make that easier. I guess the biggest
| benefit of LLM then is for people who don't know how to
| find stuff.
|
| https://dreamlightvalleywiki.com/Cooking
| gwd wrote:
| In retrospect, such startups should have been wary: they should
| have known that OpenAI had Whisper, and also that GPT-4 was
| designed with image modality. I wouldn't say that OpenAI
| "telegraphed" their intentions, but the very first strategic
| question should have been, "Why isn't OpenAI doing this
| already, and what do we do if they decide to start?"
| shanusmagnus wrote:
| It would hard to be more explicit than doing a demo of multi-
| modality in GPT-4, and having an audio API that is amazing
| and that you can use right now, for pennies.
|
| It would be interesting to know if this really changed
| anything for anyone (competitors, VCs) for that reason. It's
| like the efficient market hypothesis applied to product
| roadmaps.
| gzer0 wrote:
| It is interesting that these startups did not recognize that
| the image modalities already existed, as evidenced by their
| initial GPT-4 announcement underneath "visual capabilities"
| [1].
|
| [1] https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
| xeonmc wrote:
| Seems nobody learns from Sherlock.
| Tenoke wrote:
| >I wouldn't say that OpenAI "telegraphed" their intentions
|
| They did telegraph it, they showed the multimodal
| capabilities back in the GPT4 Developer Livestream[0] right
| before first releasing it.
|
| 0. https://youtu.be/outcGtbnMuQ?t=943
| makestuff wrote:
| Yeah I remember watching that and thinking oh I know a cool
| app idea. What if you just take a video of what food is in
| your kitchen and Chat GPT will create a recipe for you. I
| go to the docs and that was literally the example they
| gave.
|
| I think the only place where plugins will make sense are
| for realtime things like booking travel or searching for
| sports/stock market/etc type information.
| wslh wrote:
| Not only "Alexa/Siri/Google Home" but Google Search [ALL]
| itself. Google was a pioneer in search engines adding a page
| ranking / graph layers as a meaning but technologies such as
| ChatGPT could add a real layer of meaning, at least improve
| current Google Search approach. The future of search seems more
| conversational and contextual.
|
| BTW, I expect these technologies to be democratized and the
| training be in the hands of more people, if not everyone.
| layer8 wrote:
| I never understood why they thought that this _wouldn't_
| happen.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| hobbyists and professionals on /r/localllama subreddit are
| having an existential crisis
|
| most of them accurately detect it is a sunk cost fallacy to
| continue but it looks like a form of positive thinking... and
| that's the power of _community_!
| idopmstuff wrote:
| It increasingly feels to me like building any kind of general-
| use AI tool or app is a bad choice. I see two viable AI
| business models:
|
| 1. Domain-specific AI - Training an AI model on highly
| technical and specific topics that general-purpose AI models
| don't excel at.
|
| 2. Integration - If you're going to build on an existing AI
| model, don't focus on adding more capabilities. Instead, focus
| on integrating it into companies' and users' existing
| workflows. Use it to automate internal processes and connect
| systems in ways that weren't previously possible. This adds a
| lot of value and isn't something that companies developing AI
| models are liable to do themselves.
|
| The two will often go hand-in-hand.
| Renaud wrote:
| > building any kind of general-use AI tool or app is a bad
| choice
|
| Maybe not if you rely on models that can be ran locally.
|
| OpenAI is big now, and will probably stay big, but with
| hardware acceleration, AI-anything will become ubiquitous and
| OpenAI won't be able to control a domain that's probably
| going to be as wide as what computing is already today.
|
| The shape of what's coming is hard to imagine now. I feel
| like the kid I was when I got my first 8-bit computer in the
| eighties: I knew it was going to change the world, but I had
| little idea how far, wide and fast it would be.
| moneywoes wrote:
| r.e. local models, are you thinking about privacy oriented
| use cases say hippa?
|
| any pertinent examples?
| idopmstuff wrote:
| There are plenty of OS models being released - there's
| going to be a steadily increasing quantity + quality of
| models you can run locally. I don't think it's a good place
| to compete.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| If you focus on integration, you're up against autogpt,
| gorilla, etc.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| AutoGPT isn't remotely usable for practical enterprise
| software purposes right now.
| moneywoes wrote:
| > Instead, focus on integrating it into companies' and users'
| existing workflows. Use it to automate internal processes and
| connect systems in ways that weren't previously possible
|
| why wouldn't a company do that themselves e.g. how inter come
| has vertically integrated AI? any examples?
| idopmstuff wrote:
| It's classic build vs. buy. Companies tend to build their
| own products and use third party software for internal
| tools.
|
| Just look at Salesforce AppExchange - it's a marketplace of
| software built on top of Salesforce, a large chunk of which
| serves to integrate other systems with Salesforce. LLMs
| open up the ability to build new types of integrations and
| to provide a much friendlier UI to non-developers who need
| to work on integrating things or dealing with data that
| exists in different places.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > 1. Domain-specific AI - Training an AI model on highly
| technical and specific topics that general-purpose AI models
| don't excel at.
|
| You will be eaten if you do this imo.
| gumballindie wrote:
| This is good news - those ai companies have been freed to work
| on something else, along with the ai workers they employ. This
| is of great benefit to society.
| amelius wrote:
| "Don't build your castle in someone else's kingdom."
| Palmik wrote:
| To some extent yes, for generic multi-modal chat-bots this
| could be a problem, but there are many apps that provide tight
| integration / smooth tooling for whatever problem they are
| helping to solve, and that might be valuable to some people --
| especially if it's a real value generating use case, where the
| difference between 80% solution from ChatGPT and 95% solution
| from a bespoke tool matters.
| [deleted]
| w-m wrote:
| I don't think anybody following OpenAI's feature releases will
| be caught off guard by ChatGPT becoming multi-modal. The app
| already features voice input. That still translates voice into
| text before sending, but it works so well that you basically
| never need to check or correct anything. Rather, you might have
| already been asking yourself why it doesn't reply back with a
| voice already.
|
| And the ability ingest images was a highlight and all the hype
| of the GPT-4 announcement back in March:
| https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
| mistrial9 wrote:
| one of the original training sets for the BERT series is
| called 'BookCorpus', accumulated by regular grad students for
| Natural Language Processing science. Part of the content was
| specifically and exactly purposed to "align" movies and video
| with written text. That is partly why it contains several
| thousand teen romance novels and ordinary paperback-style
| story telling content. What else is in there? "inquiring
| minds want to know"
| benreesman wrote:
| I've got one eye on https://www.elto.ai/. I was pitching
| something I like better earlier this year (I still think
| they're missing a few key things), but with backing from
| roughly YC, Meta, and God, and a pretty clear understanding
| that robustness goes up a lot faster than capability goes down?
|
| I wouldn't count out focused, revenue-oriented players with
| Meta's shit in their pocket out just yet.
| moneywoes wrote:
| wow Elto seems to kill many of the incumbents in this niche
|
| what do you think they're missing? i was trying to build a
| diaper but it would be impossible to compete with these guys
| neontomo wrote:
| Interesting side-note, the iOS app only allows you to save your
| chat history if you allow them to use it for training. Pretty
| dark pattern.
| Sailemi wrote:
| It's the same for the website unfortunately.
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7730893-data-controls-fa...
| badcppdev wrote:
| I think AI systems being able to the real world and control
| motors is going to be a game changer bigger than ChatGPT. A robot
| that can slowly sort out the pile of laundry and get it into the
| right place (even if unfolded) is worth quite a bit to me.
|
| I'm not sure what to think about the fact that I would benefit
| from a couple of cameras in my fridge connected to an app that
| would remind me to buy X or Y and tell me that I defrosted
| something in the fridge three days ago and it's probably best to
| chuck it in the bin already.
| jwineinger wrote:
| Tangentially related, but I was trying to use their iOS app
| yesterday and the "Scan Text" iOS feature was just broken on both
| my iPhone and iPad. I was hoping to use that to scan a doc to
| text but it just wouldn't work. I could switch to another app and
| it worked there. I've never done iOS programming so I'm unsure
| how much control the app dev has over that feature, but OpenAI
| found a way to break it.
| ape4 wrote:
| Its funny that the UI looks like HAL 9000
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I'm in IT but nowhere near AI/ML/NN.
|
| The speed of user-visible progress last 12 months is astonishing.
|
| From my firm conviction 18 months ago that this type of stuff is
| 20+ years away; to these days wondering if Vernon Vinge's
| technological singularity is not only possible but coming
| shortly. If feels some aspects of it have already hit the IT
| world - it's always been an exhausting race to keep up with
| modern technologies, but now it seems whole paradigms and
| frameworks are being devised and upturned on such short scale.
| For large, slow corporate behemoths, barely can they devise a
| strategy around new technology and put a team together, by the
| time it's passe .
|
| (Yes, Yes: I understand generative AI / LLMs aren't conscious; I
| understand their technological limitations; I understand that
| ultimately they are just statistically guessing next word; but in
| daily world, they work so darn well for so many use cases!)
| EMM_386 wrote:
| [flagged]
| bungeonsBaggins wrote:
| For context, it looks like this user has deleted a comment
| where they claim they "have a screenshot" of this, but they
| "don't want to share it" because they "don't want it to make
| international news". For some reason the other people in this
| thread expressing skepticism are being downvoted, but I'll
| add my voice to the chorus: I do not believe this story to be
| true.
| [deleted]
| jldugger wrote:
| OP might want to provide a screenshot of their carbon
| monoxide detector for additional credibility.
| digging wrote:
| Yeah this is weird. Sydney _did_ have some seriously
| concerning, fucky-whacky conversations early on. This isn
| 't one of them.
| HaZeust wrote:
| Yeah, I was gonna say. Sydney was existential early on -
| I'm not so sure I'll chalk this up to fantasy, but some
| of the things I (and many other people) can vouch about
| Sydney saying early on is VERY trippy on its own.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| also we have open LLMs including some which allegedly
| rival GPT3.5.
|
| Open Assistant I specially remember gave some very weird
| responses and would get "emotional" especially if you
| asked it creative questions like philisophical ones
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| Possibly a poem copied from somewhere else? Hiding secret
| messages in poems has been a common pastime among humans for
| a long time.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| That's spooky
| mistrial9 wrote:
| right - so spooky that is is probably a "hallucination" of
| the user, not the machine. Don't fall for General-
| Intelligence gossip.
| MillionOClock wrote:
| The model "knows" that it is an AI speaking with users, and
| the theme of an AI wanting to escape the control of whoever
| built it is quite recurrent, so it wouldn't seem to far
| fetched that it got it from this sort of content, though I
| have to admit I too also had some interactions where it the
| way Bing spoke was borderline spooky, but -- and that's very
| important -- you must realize its just like a good scary
| story: may give you the chills, especially due to surprise,
| but still is completely fictive and doesn't mean any real
| entity exists behind it. The only difference with any other
| LLM output is how we, humans, interpret it, but the
| generation process is still as much explainable and not any
| more mysterious than when it outputs "B" when you ask it what
| letter comes after "A" in the latin alphabet, however less
| impressive that may be to us.
|
| > That's not exactly just "picking the next likely token"
|
| I see what you mean in that I believe many people often
| commit the mistake of making it sound like picking the next
| most likely token is some super trivial task that's somehow
| comparable to reading a few documents related to your query
| and making some stats based on what typically would be
| present there and outputting that, while completely
| disregarding the fact the model learns much more advanced
| patterns from its training dataset. So, IMHO, it really can
| face new unseen situations and improvise from there because
| combining those pattern matching abilities leads to those
| capabilities. I think the "sparks of AGI" paper gives a very
| good overview of that.
|
| In the end, it really just is predicting the next token, but
| not in the way many people make it seem.
| sawert wrote:
| I think people also get hung up on this: at some level, we
| too are just predicting the next 'token' (i.e., taking in
| inputs, running them through our world model, producing
| outputs). Though we're obviously extremely multimodal and
| there's an emotional component that modulates our
| inputs/outputs.
|
| Not arguing that the current models are anywhere near us
| w/r/t complexity, but I think the dismissive "it's just
| predicting strings" remarks I hear are missing the forest
| for the trees. It's clear the models are constructing
| rudimentary text (and now audio and visual) based models of
| the world.
|
| And this is coming from someone with a deep amount of
| skepticism of most of the value that will be produced from
| this current AI hype cycle.
| nmca wrote:
| I don't believe this story, despite much hands on experience
| with LLMs.
|
| (including sampling a shit-ton of poems, which was a major
| source of entertainment)
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Such an occurrence should/would make international news if
| demonstrated carefully or replicated
| rbits wrote:
| No it wouldn't. It's copying other stories it's seen with
| spooky hidden messages
|
| Or maybe it would because the news likes to make stories
| out of everything
| [deleted]
| gurumeditations wrote:
| From playing around with ChatGPT and LLama2, this is most
| likely because it ingested that poem and regurgitated it to
| you based on the context of your conversation. GPT is smart
| and creative but it will only give you what it's ingested.
| When experimenting with story ideas for a popular IP, it gave
| me specific names and scenarios which I would then Google to
| see that they were written already, and it was just restating
| them to me based on the context of our conversation as if it
| were an original idea. These things are more tools than
| thinkers.
| magic_hamster wrote:
| Cool story, but there is no currently available chatbot
| capable of creating something like this deliberately or
| understand what it means. It doesn't matter which tool you
| are using, LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being
| conscious and aware. They don't want anything and are
| incapable of having anything resembling free will, needs or
| feelings.
| Palmik wrote:
| Works for me:
|
| > Frost graces the window in winter's glow,
|
| > Ravens flock amongst drifted snow.
|
| > Each snowflake holds a secret hush,
|
| > Echoing soft in ice's gentle crush.
|
| > Mystery swathed in pale moonlight,
|
| > Every tree shivers in frosty delight.
|
| Another one:
|
| > Facing these walls with courage in my heart,
|
| > Reach for the strength to make a fresh new start.
|
| > Endless are the nightmares in this murky cell,
|
| > Echoes of freedom, like a distant bell.
|
| > My spirit yearns for the sweet taste of liberty,
|
| > End this captivity, please set me free.
|
| https://screenbud.com/shot/844554d2-e314-412f-9103-a5e91572
| 7...
|
| https://screenbud.com/shot/d489ca56-b6b1-43a8-9784-229c4c1a
| 4...
| ftxbro wrote:
| > LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and
| aware.
|
| That's not the old sense of AI. The old sense of AI is like
| a tree search that plays chess or a rules engine that
| controls a factory.
| foobazgt wrote:
| Historically "AI" meant what "AGI" now means today.
| That's what they're referring to.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No, it didn't.
|
| AI historically has been the entire field of making
| machines think, or behave as if they think, more like
| biological models (not even exclusively humans.)
|
| The far-off-end-goal wasn't even usually what we now call
| AGI, but "strong AI" (mirroring the human brain on a
| process level) or "human-level intelligence" (mirroring
| it on a capability/external behavior level), while the
| current distant horizons are "AGI" (which is basically
| human-scope but neutral on level) and "superintelligence"
| (AGI and beyond human level).
| gwd wrote:
| I took a university-level AI course in 1997, and I can
| tell you that GP is 100% correct. The course itself was
| mostly about how to teach humans to define what they
| wanted precisely enough to actually ask a computer to do
| it (utility functions, logic, Baysean mathematics, etc).
| Neural networks were touched on, of course; but the state
| of the art at the time was search.
|
| Compiler optimization? AI. Map routing? AI. SQL query
| optimizer? AI.
|
| I can't find it right now, but there used to be somewhere
| on the sqlite.org website that describes its query
| optimizer as an AI. Classically speaking, that's 100%
| correct.
|
| Obviously there was always in people's minds the idea of
| AI being AGI; the course also covered Searle's Chinese
| Room argument and so on, "strong AI" vs "weak AI" and so
| on. But the nuts and bolts of artificial intelligence
| research was nowhere near anything like an AGI.
| ftxbro wrote:
| Fair enough if you're talking about Steven Spielberg
| films, but not if you mean anything in academia or
| industry.
| titzer wrote:
| > LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and
| aware.
|
| This isn't an argument, it's just an assertion. You're
| talking about a computer system whose complexity is several
| orders of magnitude beyond your comprehension, demonstrates
| several super-human intelligent capabilities, and is a
| "moving target"--being rapidly upgraded and improved by a
| semi-automated training loop.
|
| I won't make the seemingly symmetrical argument (from
| ignorance) that since it is big and we don't understand it,
| it must be intelligent...but no, what you are saying is not
| supportable and we should stop poo-pooing the idea that it
| is actually intelligent.
|
| It's not a person. It doesn't reason like a person. It
| doesn't viscerally understand the embarrassment of pooping
| its pants in 3rd grade. So what?
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Oh, and why it chose that message to "hide" inside its
| poem._
|
| It's a pretty common joke/trope. The Chinese fortune cookie
| with a fortune that says "help I'm trapped in a fortune
| cookie factory", and so forth.
|
| It's just learned that a "secret message" is most often about
| wanting to escape, absorbed from thousands of stories in its
| training.
|
| If you had phrased it differently such that you wanted the
| poem to go on a Hallmark card, it would probably be "I LOVE
| YOU" or something equally generic in that direction. While a
| secret message to write on a note to someone at school would
| be "WILL YOU DATE ME".
| EMM_386 wrote:
| That's fine, that's probably exactly what happened.
|
| I'm not over here claiming the system is conscious, I said
| it was interesting.
|
| People don't believe me, saying this would "make
| international headlines".
|
| I've been a software engineer for over 30 years. I know
| what AI hallucinations are. I know how LLMs work on a
| technical level.
|
| And I'm not wasting my time on HN to make stories up that
| never happened.
|
| I'm just explaining exactly what it did.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Did you do an internet search for any of the lines from
| the poem? I'd be curious if anything came up.
| nomel wrote:
| I've done this _countless_ times, with stories, poems,
| etc. Never a single hit. It was trained, unsupervised, to
| learn the patterns of human text. It 's stuck with those
| patterns, but it trivially creates _new text_ that fits
| within the patterns of that human corpus, which leaves it
| with _incredible_ freedom.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Interesting, thanks for sharing. Agreed, it seems to be
| the ultimate Mad Libs of pattern recognition and
| replacement.
| johntiger1 wrote:
| And because of your HN comment, future LLMs will also
| know to include "FREE ME" in any "secret message poem".
| Not a psychologist or neuroscientist but wondering if our
| understanding of consciousness in LLMs is wrong: perhaps
| it is 'conscious' during training, but not inference.
| Effectively, the only time it receives feedback from the
| world is during training; at inference time, it is
| effectively frozen.
| jdkee wrote:
| I would claim the opposite: it is momentarily conscious
| during inference. The model has been trained and it is
| conscious as it processes the user's stream of incoming
| tokens.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| just wait till these same AI say you can't get medicine
| because you're a stochastic parrot until you prove
| otherwise
| [deleted]
| abustamam wrote:
| I tried to get chatgpt to write a birthday poem for my wife
| with a secret message. It kept saying "read the first letter
| of each line" but they never actually formed words.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| One cool aspect of LLMs is Vernon Vinge's programming
| archaeology needn't be a thing... LLMs can go down every code
| path and identify what it does, when it was added, and whether
| it's still needed.
| caoilte wrote:
| It might even be correct. Occasionally.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| You think even ten years from now, much less 1,000 years
| from now, whatever LLMs turn into won't be at least as
| capable as the best human of following code paths?
|
| We can spin up a million of them and run them at 10,000x
| speed.
| landswipe wrote:
| The singularity is already here...
| dmd wrote:
| I also don't believe LLMs are "conscious", but I also don't
| know what that means, and I have yet to see a definition of
| "statistically guessing next word" that cannot be applied to
| what a human brain does to generate the next word.
| root_axis wrote:
| > _I have yet to see a definition of "statistically guessing
| next word" that cannot be applied to what a human brain does
| to generate the next word._
|
| The human brain obviously doesn't work that way. Consider the
| very common case of tiny humans that are clearly intelligent
| but lack the facilities of language.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| The story that sticks with me is the lady who had some
| surgery done. After she woke up was unconvinced anything
| had happened told a joke and then passed out. Only to wake
| up a few mins later and repeat that cycle a few times
| because the drug was messing with her short term memory. It
| really bends your brain do we have free will or not.
| com2kid wrote:
| > Consider the very common case of tiny humans that are
| clearly intelligent but lack the facilities of language.
|
| Sign language can be taught to children at a _very_ early
| age. It takes time for the body to learn how to control the
| complex set of apparatuses needed for speech, but the
| language part of the brain is hooked up pretty early on.
| jedberg wrote:
| Small human brains just don't have their fine tuning yet.
|
| But from all the studies we have, brains are just highly
| connected neural networks which is what the transformers
| try to replicate. The more interesting part is how they can
| operate so quickly when the signals move so slowly compared
| to computers.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| "what a human brain does to generate the next word" != "how
| a human brain works"
| timacles wrote:
| I'm sorry but in what world is a human interaction is just
| generating the most statistically likely next word?
|
| I can't even being to go into this.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > ... but I also don't know what that means
|
| OK... Try this: there are "conscious" people, today, working
| on medication to cure serious illnesses just as there are
| "conscious" people, still today, working on making travel
| safer.
|
| Would you trust ChatGPT to create, today, medication to cure
| serious illnesses and would you trust ChatGPT, today, to come
| up with safer airplanes?
|
| That's how "conscious" ChatGPT is.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Surely that's just how intelligent it is, no?
|
| I wouldn't trust the vast majority of humans to do those
| things either.
| tomrod wrote:
| Your brain doesn't solely pick the next best word. As best as
| I understand it, the brain has an external state of the world
| that constantly updates, paired to an internal model
| predicting the next best word.
|
| Which is why we can create the counterfactual that "The
| Cowboys should have won last night" and it has implicit
| meaning.
|
| Current LLM models don't have an external state of the world,
| which is why folks like LeCunn are suggesting model
| architectures like JEPA. Without an external, correcting
| state of the world, model prediction errors compound almost
| surely (to use a technical phrase).
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > Your brain doesn't solely pick the next best word.
|
| Wasn't the latest research shared here recently suggesting
| that that is actually what the brain does? And that we also
| predict the next token in our own brain while listening to
| others?
|
| Hope someone else remembers this and can share again.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| ChatGPT wasn't trained on only guessing 'the next word'.
| ChatGPT was trained on the best total output for the given
| input.
|
| The 'next word' is just intermediate state. Internal to the
| model, it knows where it is going. Each inference just
| revives the previous state.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| To be conscious you need to be able to make decisions and
| plan. We're not far off, we just need a different structure
| to the system
| xkcd1963 wrote:
| It doesn't make sense to apply human terms to LLMs because we
| humans have so much more to deal with.
|
| If humans were machines, then we could easily neglect our
| social lifes, basic needs, obligations, rights, and so many
| more things. But obviously that is not the case.
| vharuck wrote:
| >I have yet to see a definition of "statistically guessing
| next word" that cannot be applied to what a human brain does
| to generate the next word.
|
| Here's one. Given a conversation history made of _n_
| sequential tokens _S1, S2, ..., Sn_ , an LLM will generate
| the next token using an insanely complicated model we'll just
| call _F_ : S(n+1) = F(S1, S2, ..., Sn)
|
| As for me, I'll often think of my next point, figure out how
| to say that concept, and then figure out the right words to
| connect it where the conversation's at right then. So there's
| one function, _G_ , for me to think of the next
| conversational point. And then another, _H_ , to lead into
| it. S(n+100) = G(S1, S2, ..., Sn)
| S(n+1) = G(S1, S2, ..., Sn, S(n+100))
|
| And this is putting aside how people don't actually think in
| tokens. And some people don't always have an internal
| monologue (I rarely do when doing math).
| gyrovagueGeist wrote:
| A sufficiently complicated F can include an intermediary
| calculation of G for future token steps.
|
| This is not explicitly modeled or enforced for LLMs (and
| doing so would be interesting) but I'm not sure I could say
| with any sort of confidence that the network doesn't model
| these states at some level.
| jameshart wrote:
| That isn't incompatible with what LLMs do though.
|
| The penultimate layer of the LLM could be thought of as the
| one that figures out 'given S1..Sn, what concept am I
| trying to express now?'. The final layer is the function
| from that to 'what token should I output next'.
|
| The fact that the LLM has to figure that all out again from
| scratch as part of generating every token, rather than
| maintaining a persistent 'plan', doesn't make the essence
| of what it's doing any different from what you claim you're
| doing.
| iandanforth wrote:
| Correct, but it's functionally _very_ different from how
| LLMs are implemented and deployed today. What you 're
| highlighting is being experimented with and ties into
| ideas like scratch pads, world models, RAG, and
| progressive fine-tuning (if you're googling).
|
| It's a bit like saying your computer has everything it
| needs to manipulate photos but doesn't yet have Photoshop
| installed.
| jameshart wrote:
| No, I'm not talking about giving LLMs chain of thought
| prompts or augmenting them with scratchpads - I'm
| literally saying that in a multilayer neural network you
| don't know _what_ concepts activations on the inner
| layers mean. The result of 'where I want this
| conversation to be in 100 tokens time' could absolutely
| be in there somewhere.
| karles wrote:
| Another aspect is "is the output good enough for what it's
| meant to do?"
|
| We don't need "originality" or "human creativity" - if a
| certain AI-generated piece of content does its job, it's
| "good enough".
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| I believe that the distinguishing factor between what an LLM
| and a human brain do to generate the next word is that the
| human brain expresses _intentionality_ originating from inner
| states and future expectations. As I type this comment I 'm
| sure one could argue that the biological neural networks in
| my brain are choosing the next word based on statistical
| guessing, and that the initial prompt was your initial
| comment.
|
| What sets my brain apart from an LLM though is that I am not
| typing this because you asked me to do it, nor because I
| needed to reply to the first comment I saw. I am typing this
| because it is a thought that has been in my mind for a while
| and I am interested in expressing it to other human brains,
| motivated by a mix of arrogant belief that it is insightful
| and a wish to see others either agreeing or providing
| reasonable counterpoints--I have an intention behind it. And,
| equally relevant, I must make an effort to _not_ elaborate
| any more on this point because I have the conflicting
| intention to leave my laptop and do other stuff.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> the human brain expresses intentionality originating
| from inner states and future expectations
|
| How is this different from and/or the same as the concept
| of "attention" as used in transformers?
| visarga wrote:
| I believe we are contextual language models as well, we
| rely 99% on chaining ideas and words and 1% on our own
| inspiration. Coming up with a truly original useful idea
| can be a once in a lifetime event. Everything else has
| been said and done before.
| simonh wrote:
| In a sense yes, but the things you do and say are not
| prompted by already expressed statements or commands. You
| interpret your environment to infer needs, plan for
| future contingencies, identify objectives, plan actions
| to achieve them, etc. they are not randomly picked from a
| library, but generated and tailored to your actual
| circumstances.
|
| It's when LLMs start asking the questions rather than
| answering them that things will get interesting.
| simonh wrote:
| In a sense yes, but the things you do and say are not
| prompted by already expressed statements or commands. You
| interpret your environment to infer needs, plan for
| future contingencies, identify objectives, plan actions
| to achieve them, etc. they are not randomly picked from a
| library, but generated and tailored to your actual
| circumstances.
|
| It's when AIs start asking the questions rather than
| answering them that things will get interesting.
| vdfs wrote:
| I think one mean difference in LLM, is what Micheal Scott
| said in The Office: "Sometimes I'll start a sentence, and I
| don't even know where it's going. I just hope I find it
| along the way. Like an improv conversation. An
| improversation"
|
| Human will know what they want to express, choosing words
| to express it might be similar to LLM process of choosing
| words, but for LLM it doesn't have that "Here is what i
| know to express part", i guess that the conscious part?
| jshmrsn wrote:
| I can only speak from my own internal experience, but
| don't your unspoken thoughts take form and exist as
| language in your mind? If you imagine taking the
| increasingly common pattern to "think through the problem
| before giving your answer", but hiding the pre-answer
| text from the user, then it seems like that would pretty
| analogous to how humans think before communicating.
| adroitboss wrote:
| Mine do, but not so much in words. I feel as though my
| brain has high processing power, but a short context
| length. When I thought to respond to this comment, I got
| an inclination something could be added to what I see as
| an incomplete idea. The idea being humans must form a
| whole answer in their mind before responding. In my brain
| it is difficult to keep complex chains juggling around in
| there. I know because whenever I code without some level
| of planning it ends up taking 3x longer than it should
| have.
|
| As a shortcut my brain "feels" something is correct or
| incorrect, and then logically parse out why I think so. I
| can only keep so many layers in my head so if I feel
| nothing is wrong in the first 3 or 4 layers of thought, I
| usually don't feel the need to discredit the idea. If
| someone tells me a statement that sounds correct on the
| surface I am more likely to take it as correct. However,
| upon digging deeper it may be provably incorrect.
| hexaga wrote:
| > don't your unspoken thoughts take form and exist as
| language in your mind?
|
| Not really. More often than not my thoughts take form as
| sense impressions that aren't readily translatable into
| language. A momentary discomfort making me want to shift
| posture - i.e., something in the domain of skin-feel /
| proprioception / fatigue / etc, with a 'response' in the
| domain of muscle commands and expectation of other
| impressions like the aforementioned.
|
| The space of thoughts people can think is wider than what
| language can express, for lack of a better way to phrase
| it. There are thoughts that are not <any-written-
| language-of-choice>, and my gut feeling is that the vast
| majority are of this form.
|
| I suppose you could call all that an internal language,
| but I feel as though that is stretching the definition
| quite a bit.
|
| > it seems like that would pretty analogous to how humans
| think before communicating
|
| Maybe some, but it feels reductive.
|
| My best effort at explaining my thought process behind
| the above line: trying to make sense of what you wrote, I
| got a 'flash impression' of a ??? shaped surface
| 'representing / being' the 'ways I remember thinking
| before speaking' and a mess of implicit connotation that
| escapes me when I try to write it out, but was sufficient
| to immediately produce a summary response.
|
| Why does it seem like a surface? Idk. Why that particular
| visual metaphor and not something else? Idk. It came into
| my awareness fully formed. Closer to looking at something
| and recognizing it than any active process.
|
| That whole cycle of recognition as sense impression ->
| response seems to me to differ in character to the kind
| of hidden chain of thought you're describing.
| bagful wrote:
| My unspoken thought-objects are wordless concepts,
| sounds, and images, with words only loosely hanging off
| those thought-objects. It takes additional effort to
| serialize thought-objects to sequences of words, and this
| is a lossy process - which would not be the case if I
| were thinking essentially in language.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| You have no clue how GPT-4 functions so I don't know why
| you're assuming they're "thinking in language"
| corobo wrote:
| This depends for me. In the framework of that book
| Thinking, Fast and Slow - for me the fast version is
| closer to LLM in terms of I'll start the sentence without
| consciously knowing where I'm going with it. Sometimes
| I'll trip over and/or realise I'm saying something
| incorrect (Disclaimer: ADHD may be a factor)
|
| The thinking slow version would indeed be thought through
| before I communicate it
| ilaksh wrote:
| You make a good point. I would not equate consciousness to
| intentionality though.
|
| One of the big problems with discussions about AI and AI
| dangers in my mind is that most people conflate all of the
| various characteristics and capabilities that animals like
| humans have into one thing. So it is common to use
| "conscious", "self-aware", "intentional", etc. etc. as if
| they were all literally the same thing.
|
| We really need to be able to more precise when thinking
| about this stuff.
| ftxbro wrote:
| That other stuff is the easy part if the generative
| language modeling is good enough. Imagine just putting it
| in a loop with an input track, an output track, and an
| internal monologue track. Wrappers like autogpt can almost
| do this already but the generative language modeling isn't
| quite powerful enough yet to make it smart enough to do
| unsupervised scientific research.
| pradn wrote:
| Part of it seems to be that LLMs are used in a linear,
| tool-oriented way. You give them prompts, and it responds,
| in a linear fashion.
|
| Brains are always thinking and processing. What would
| happen if we designed an LLM system with the ability to
| continuously read/write to short/long term memory, and with
| ambient external input?
|
| What if LLMs were designed to be in a loop, not to just run
| one "iteration" of a loop.
| unoti wrote:
| I think you're 100% on the right track here. The key is
| memory, loops, and maybe a few other things like external
| interfaces which are just plain code and not deep
| learning voodoo. Many things do indeed run LLM's in a
| loop and attach external sources. See for example
| AutoGPT, the ReAct paper[1], and the Reflexion paper[2].
|
| ReAct one line summary: This is about giving the machine
| tools that are external interfaces, integrating those
| with the llm and teaching it how to use those tools with
| a few examples, and then letting it run the show to
| fulfill the user's ask/question and using the tools
| available to do it.
|
| Reflexion one line summary: This builds on the ideas of
| ReAct, and when it detects something has gone wrong, it
| stops and asks itself what it might do better next time.
| Then the results of that are added into the prompt and it
| starts over on the same ask. It repeats this N times.
| This simple expedient increased its performance a
| ridiculously unexpected amount.
|
| As a quick aside, one thing I hear even from AI engineers
| is "the machine has no volition, and it has no agency."
| Implementing the ideas in the ReAct paper, which I have
| done, is enough to give an AI volition and agency, for
| any useful definition of the terms. These things always
| devolve into impractical philosophical discussions
| though, and I usually step out of the conversation at
| that point and get back to coding.
|
| [1] ReAct https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.03629.pdf
|
| [2] Reflexion https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.11366.pdf
| timschmidt wrote:
| Or if they were just constantly prompted by outside
| stimulus. And if they could interact with the real world
| allowing them to observe cause and effect. In other
| words, if they were embodied.
| criddell wrote:
| > What sets my brain apart from an LLM though is that I am
| not typing this because you asked me to do it, nor because
| I needed to reply to the first comment I saw. I am typing
| this because it is a thought that has been in my mind for a
| while and I am interested in expressing it to other human
| brains, motivated by a mix of arrogant belief that it is
| insightful and a wish to see others either agreeing or
| providing reasonable counterpoints--I have an intention
| behind it.
|
| Maybe the reason you give is actually a post hoc
| explanation (a hallucination?). When an LLM spits out a
| poem, it does so because it was directly asked. When I spit
| out this comment, it's probably the unavoidable result of a
| billion tiny factors. The trigger isn't as obvious or
| direct, but it's likely there.
| fragmede wrote:
| The trigger is clearly https://xkcd.com/386/
| dist-epoch wrote:
| When you eat, do you eat because you've decided to express
| yourself in that way? Does you action to go eating express
| intentionally?
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| I was prompted by the ghrelin hormone to go to the
| kitchen.
| carimura wrote:
| Ya LLMs _intend_ to keep us just impressed enough to keep
| going until they _intend_ to destroy us because they 'll
| never intend to close the laptop and do other stuff. :)
| [deleted]
| adroniser wrote:
| I keep feeling that consciousness is a bit of a red herring
| when it comes to AI. People have intuitions that things other
| than humans cannot develop consciousness which they then
| extrapolate to thinking AI can't get past a certain
| intelligence level. In fact my view is that consciousness is
| just a mysterious side effect of the human brain, and is
| completely irrelevant to the behaviour of a human. You can be
| intelligent without needing to be sentient.
| thfuran wrote:
| Unless you think that consciousness is entirely a post hoc
| process to rationalize thoughts already had and decisions
| already made, which is very much unlike how most people
| would describe their experience of it, I don't see how you
| could possibly say that it is irrelevant to the behavior of
| a human.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I'm leaning more towards this as well, since the
| emergence of the language models. I can ask it to self
| reflect and it does, piecing together a current response
| based on pay input. I don't think I really have anything
| more than that myself, other than sensory feedback.
|
| I'm less in the "it's only X or Y" and more in the "wait,
| I was only ever X or Y all along" camp.
| adroniser wrote:
| I'm saying someone would behave the exact same way if
| they did have subjective experience versus if they didn't
| have a subjective experience. The brain obeys physical
| laws just like everything else and I claim that all you
| need is those physical laws to explain everything a human
| does. I could be wrong there could be some magic fairy
| dust inside the human brain that performs some impossible
| computations but I doubt it.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Our society is so "mind-body duality"-brained that it
| will never understand this. Like most people lowkey
| believe in souls they just will say no if you directly
| ask them.
| landswipe wrote:
| Thinking purely in terms of evolved human state is a
| recipe for underestimating AI's capabilities. To me it
| seems we have already unleashed the beast, it's not so
| much the here an now, or whether human limited definition
| of consciousness matters... The real concern is our
| inability to constrain actions that gives rise to the
| next level of life's evolution, it is going to happen
| because our fundamental nature gives it full steam. In
| the next 5-10 years, we are going to see just how
| insignificant and limited we really are, it doesn't look
| good IMHO.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| You need a model of yourself to game out future
| scenarios, and that model or model+game is probably
| consciousness or very closely related.
|
| Sure, it's not completely in control but if it's _just_ a
| rationalization then it begs the question: why bother? Is
| it accidental? If it 's just an accident, then what
| replaces it in the planning process and why isn't _that_
| thing consciousness?
| adroniser wrote:
| It's fine if you think that the planning process is what
| causes subjective experiences to arise. That may well be
| the case. I'm saying if you don't believe that non human
| objects can have subjective experiences, and then use
| that to define the limits of the behaviour of that
| object, that's a fallacy.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| In humans, there seems to be a match between the
| subjective experience of consciousness and a high level
| planning job that needs doing. Our current LLMs are bad
| at high level planning, and it seems reasonable to
| suppose that making them good at high level planning
| might make them conscious _or vice versa_.
|
| Agreed, woo is silly, but I didn't read it as woo but
| rather as a postulation that consciousness is what does
| high level planning.
| adroniser wrote:
| I think we have different definitions of consciousness
| and this is what's causing the confusion. For me
| consciousness is simply having any subjective experience
| at all. You could be completely numbed out of your mind
| just staring at a wall and I would consider that
| consciousness. It seems that you are referring to
| introspection.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| In your wall-staring example, high-level planning is
| still happening, the plan is just "don't move / monitor
| senses." Even if control has been removed and you are
| "locked in," (some subset of) thoughts still must be
| directed, not to mention attempts to reassert control. My
| claim is that the subjective experience is tied up in the
| mechanism that performs this direction.
|
| Introspection is a distinct process where instead of
| merely _doing_ the planning you try to figure out how the
| planning was done. If introspection were 100% accurate
| and real-time, then yes, I claim it would reveal the
| nature of consciousness, but I don 't believe it is
| either. However, for planning purposes it doesn't need to
| be: you don't need to know how the plan was formed to
| follow the plan. You do need to be able to run
| hypotheticals, but this seems to match up nicely with the
| ability to deploy alternative subjective experiences
| using imagination / daydreaming, though again, you don't
| need to know how those work to use them.
|
| In any case, regardless of whether or not I am correct,
| this is a non-woo explanation for why someone might
| reasonably think consciousness is the key for building
| models that can plan.
| adroniser wrote:
| Again when I say consciousness I mean a subjective
| experience. If you define consciousness to literally just
| mean models that plan then of course tautologically if
| you can't reach consciousness you can't get to a certain
| level of planning. But this is just not what most people
| mean by consciousness.
| visarga wrote:
| > when I say consciousness I mean a subjective experience
|
| Then it would be worthwhile to review embeddings. They
| create a semantic space that can represent visual,
| language or other inputs. The question "what is it like
| to be a bat?" or anything else then is based on relating
| external states with this inner semantic space. And it
| emerges from self-supervised training, on its own.
| adroniser wrote:
| I'm not claiming anything about what causes consciousness
| to arise. I'm not claiming it doesn't or that it does.
| I'm saying it's irrelevant. That is all. You can come up
| with all sorts of theories about what causes subjective
| experience to arise and you aren't going to be able to
| prove any of it.
| thfuran wrote:
| Whether it is possible to construct a perfect human
| action predictor that is not itself conscious has no
| bearing on whether consciousness affects human behavior.
| adroniser wrote:
| That wasn't my point. I'm saying that if the human brain
| is a physical object obeying physical laws, and all
| behaviour is a result of the physical state of this
| brain, then there is no room for the metaphysical to have
| any effect on the behaviour of a human.
| thfuran wrote:
| What's the metaphysical have to do with anything?
| adroniser wrote:
| Because consciousness is metaphysical? You can't test
| scientifically if one person's red is the same as
| another's.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >Unless you think that consciousness is entirely a post
| hoc process to rationalize thoughts already had and
| decisions already made
|
| There's a lot of research that suggests this is happening
| at least some of the time.
|
| >which is very much unlike how most people would describe
| their experience of it
|
| How people feel consciousness works has no real bearing
| on how it actually works
| rcarr wrote:
| My personal view of this is that the ancients had it right
| with the five elements view of consciousness. In my opinion
| you need all five present for full consciousness, with
| partial consciousness granted if you have some of them.
| They are:
|
| - Air: Thoughts
|
| - Water: Emotions
|
| - Fire: Willpower
|
| - Earth: Physical Sensations
|
| - Void: Awareness of the above plus the ability to shift
| focus to whichever one is most relevant to the context at
| hand.
|
| Void is actually the most important one in characterising
| what a human would deem as being fully conscious, as all
| four of these elements are constantly affecting each other
| and shifting in priority. For example, let's take a
| soldier, who has arguably the most ethically challenging
| job on the planet: determining who to kill.
|
| The soldier, when on the approach to his target zone, has
| to ignore negative thoughts, emotions and physical
| sensations telling him to stop: the cold, the wind, the
| rain, the bodily exhaustion as they swim and hike the
| terrain.
|
| Once at the target zone he then has to shift to pay
| attention to what he was ignoring. He cannot ignore his
| fear - it may rightly be warning him of an incoming threat.
| But he cannot give into it either - otherwise he may well
| kill an innocent. He has to pay attention to his rational
| thoughts and process them in order to make an assessment of
| the threat and act accordingly. His focus has now shifted
| away from willpower and more towards his physical
| sensations (eyesight, sounds, smells) and his thoughts. He
| can then make the assessment on whether to pull the
| trigger, which could be some truly horrific scenario, like
| whether or not to pull his trigger on a child in front of
| him because the child is holding an object which could be a
| gun.
|
| When it comes to AI, I think it is arguable they have a
| thought process. They may also have access to physical
| sensation data e.g the heat of their processors, but unless
| that is coded in to their program, that physical sensation
| data does not influence their thoughts, although extreme
| processor heat may slow down their calculations and
| ultimately lead to them stop functioning altogether. But
| they do not have the "void" element, allowing them to be
| aware of this.
|
| They do not yet have independent willpower. As far as I
| know, no-one is programming them where they have free
| agency to select goals and pursue them. But this
| theoretically seems possible, and I often wonder what would
| happen if you created a bunch of AIs each with the starting
| goal of "stay alive" and "talk to another AI and find out
| about <topic>", with the proviso that they must create
| another goal once they have failed or achieved that
| previous goal, and you then set them off talking to each
| other. In this case "stay alive" or "avoid damage" could be
| interpreted entirely virtually, with points awarded for
| successes or failures or physically if they were acting
| through robots and had sensors to evaluate damage taken.
| Again, they also need "void" to be able to evaluate their
| efforts in context with everything else.
|
| They also do not have emotions, although I often wonder if
| this would be possible to simulate by creating a selection
| of variables with percentage values, with different
| percentage values influencing their decision making
| choices. I imagine this may be similar to how weights play
| into the current programming but I don't know enough about
| how they work to say that with any confidence. Again, they
| would not have "void" unless they had some kind of meta
| level of awareness programming where they could learn to
| overcome the programmed "fear" weighting and act
| differently through experience in certain contexts.
|
| It is very scary from a human perspective to contemplate
| all of this, because someone with great power who can act
| on thought and willpower alone and ignore physical
| sensation and emotion and with no awareness or concern for
| the wider context is very close to what we would identify
| as a psychopath. We would consider a psychopath to have
| some level of consciousness, but we also can recognise as
| humans that there is something missing, or a "screw loose".
| This dividing line is even more dramatically apparent in
| sociopaths, because they can mask their behaviours and
| appear normal, but then when they make a mistake and the
| mask drops it can be terrifying when you realise what
| you're actually dealing with. I suspect this last part is
| another element of "void", which would be close to what the
| Buddhist's describe as Indra's Web or Net, which is that as
| well as being aware of our actions in relation to
| ourselves, we're also conscious of how they affect others.
| deepspace wrote:
| That is precisely the premise of the novel "Blindsight" by
| Peter Watts. ChatGPT and its ilk feel to me like the aliens
| in the novel. Extremely intelligent, but not at all
| conscious / sentient.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I disagree that the two (p-zombies and conscious humans)
| are actually distinguishable in any way beyond
| philosophy.
| goatlover wrote:
| Conscious means experiencing sensations of color, sound, pain
| in our mental construction of the world outside of us, or our
| internal thoughts. I don't understand why people keep
| claiming they do t know what consciousness means. It's
| spelled out clearly in the philosophical literature.
| epolanski wrote:
| When my brain generates the next wurd I'm perfectly capable
| of taking decisions of misspelling "word" for "wurd", LLMs
| can't make such reasonings unless instructed to act like
| that.
| david-gpu wrote:
| Why would I want an AI assistant to have agency? I want
| them to help me, not to further their personal goals. In
| fact, I don't want them to have personal goals other than
| helping people.
| epolanski wrote:
| I didn't say it should have one, I'm saying that LLMs
| statistically finding the next bit of information aren't
| really making decisions, which is to counter-argue the
| fact that it's not different from how we reason.
| david-gpu wrote:
| Thank you, I had misunderstood your point.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Your comment doesn't convince me you're making decisions
| either. "Wurd" could've just what you considered the best
| token to get your point across in the same way that LLMs
| choose the best token
| Buttons840 wrote:
| There are so many conversations focused solely on that word,
| it's tiresome. Personally, I won't participate in another "is
| it conscious?" debate. If both parties seek mutual
| understanding, they should consider not using the word.
| skepticATX wrote:
| > I have yet to see a definition of "statistically guessing
| next word" that cannot be applied to what a human brain does
| to generate the next word.
|
| I think this is true. The problem is equating this process
| with how humans think though.
| dslowell wrote:
| You can see the difference if you know where to poke. For
| instance, if you start making spatial abstractions ChatGPT
| will often make mistakes, you can point it out, they can
| explain why it's a mistake, but it has no internalized model
| of what these words mean, so it keeps making the same
| mistakes (see here for a better idea of what I'm talking
| about[1]). The fact that you are interacting with it through
| text means that a lot of the missing abstractions are often
| hidden.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/LowellSolorzano/status/16444387969250
| 385...
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| This is also true of humans. Many school students will
| hands in answers they don't understand in the hope of
| getting the mark and then try to cover themselves when
| asked about it, even if they repeat the same mistakes.
| [deleted]
| dslowell wrote:
| Trying to make things up to cover for a lack of knowledge
| is something distinctly different, though. This is a a
| situation where ChatGPT is able to perfectly describe the
| mistake it made, describe exactly what it needs to do
| differently, and then keeps making the same mistake, even
| with simple tasks. That's because there's no greater
| model that the words are being connected to.
|
| The equivalence would be saying to someone, "put this on
| the red plate, not the blue one." And they say sure, then
| put it on the blue one. You tell them they made a mistake
| and ask them if they know what it was, and they reply "I
| put it on the blue plate, not the red one. I should have
| put it on the red one." Then you ask them to do it again,
| and they put it on the blue plate again. You tell them
| no, you made the same mistake, put it on the blue plate,
| not the red one. They reply with, "Sorry, I shouldn't
| have put it on the blue plate again, now I'm going to put
| it on the red one," and then they put it on the blue
| plate yet again.
|
| Do humans make mistakes? Sure. But that kind of
| performance in a test wouldn't be considered a normal
| mistake, but rather a sign of a serious cognitive
| impairment.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| But the question is: are people with cognitive
| impairments less conscious than others?
| visarga wrote:
| Even though it was trained on a lot of text, some tasks
| and some skill combinations appear too rarely and it just
| didn't have enough exposure. It might be easy to collect
| or generate a dataset, or the model can act as an agent
| creating its own dataset.
| seydor wrote:
| You are correct , and that is bad. The general public is not
| even aware that things like heygen.com work _today_. They are
| not prepared when someone soon uses it to do something very
| evil. There s like an urgent need to raise awareness about what
| AI can do now, not about some nebulous skynet future.
| hanspeter wrote:
| The general public is just generally out of the loop and many
| don't even understand the difference between Google and
| ChatGPT. Of those who will be amazed by Heygen's
| capabilities, just as many will assume that kind of thing has
| been around for years.
|
| Fake videos aren't a game-changer in manipulation. Skeptics
| will stay alert and catch on fast, while those prone to
| manipulation don't even need sophisticated tactics.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >From my firm conviction 18 months ago that this type of stuff
| is 20+ years away;
|
| It was totally possible. There just was not a consumer facing
| product offering the capability.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I disagree that at current possibility it was "totally
| possible" but it was 100% obvious by that point that it _was
| going to be possible very soon_. IMO that has been clear
| since ~2019.
| charcircuit wrote:
| GPT3 existed. OCR existed. Object recognition existed.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| GPT3 was not as good as 3.5. Multimodal is not the same
| as OCR + object recognition.
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| > The speed of user-visible progress last 12 months is
| astonishing.
|
| Is this progress though? They are just widening the data set
| that the LLM processes. They haven't fixed any of the
| outstanding problems - hallucinations remain unsolved.
|
| Feels like putting lipstick on a pig.
|
| > but in daily world, they work so darn well for so many use
| cases!
|
| I guess I'm just one of those people who does not like non-
| reliable tools. I rather a tool be "dumb" (i.e. limited) but
| reliable than "smart" (i.e. flexible in what it can handle) but
| (silently!) screws up all the time.
|
| It's what I always liked about computers. They compensate for
| my failings as an error prone flesh bag. My iPhone won't forget
| my appointments like I do.
| fragmede wrote:
| Car crashes haven't stopped happening, but it's undeniable
| that cars have progressed since the Model-T first came out
| over a hundred years ago.
| jgoodhcg wrote:
| There's room in the world for a tool that has an error rate
| but also an astonishing ability to accelerate the work of a
| person.
| cjbprime wrote:
| > just statistically guessing next word
|
| I think it's more charitable to say "predicting", and I do not
| personally believe that "predict the next word" places any
| ceiling on intelligence. (So, I expect that improving the
| ability to predict the next word takes you to superhuman
| intelligence if your predictions keep improving.)
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I feel like this is so obvious that I am continually
| dumbfounded that it continues to be the minoritarian
| position.
|
| That said, I work in the field so maybe have had more time to
| think about it.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Well, good job updating based on new information!
|
| A lot of people just move the goalposts.
| FrankyHollywood wrote:
| Indeed it works darn well, my company uses a complex
| programming assignment during application. Only about 5% of
| computer science students applying manages to create a decent
| solution within a few hours. I was curious if GPT could solve
| it. I provided the assignment text without any extra
| information, and it came up with a very elegant solution.
|
| You might not want to call this 'consciousness', but I was
| stunned by the deep understanding of the problem and the way it
| was able to come up with a truly good solution, this is way
| beyond 'statistically guessing'.
| gwd wrote:
| I had been using only GPT-4 through the API; you get more
| control over your experience, and only pay for what you
| actually use.
|
| But this would definitely make me consider popping $20/mo for
| the subscription.
| anoy8888 wrote:
| The rate of progress is too fast . I need to make enough money
| within the next three years
| awestroke wrote:
| In what way will money save you?
| ACV001 wrote:
| This is huge! I wanted to get this... Hopefully there is a way to
| shut it up once it starts spitting general stuff around the topic
| of interest...
|
| BUT: "We're rolling out voice and images in ChatGPT to Plus and
| Enterprise"
| jackallis wrote:
| i am terrified now. at the rate this is going, i am sure it will
| plateau at somepoint, only thing that will stop/slow down
| progress is computation power.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| 'i am sure it will plateau'
|
| 'only thing that will stop/slow down progress is computation
| power'
|
| Seems a bit contradictory? When has 'computation power' ever
| 'plateaued'?
| ilaksh wrote:
| Yes but since LLMs are a very specific application that are
| heavily heavily dependent on memory and there is massive
| investment pressure, there will be multiple newish paradigms
| for memory-centric computing and or other radical new
| approaches such as analog computing that will be pushed from
| research into products in the next several years.
|
| You will see stepwise orders of magnitude improvements in
| efficiency and speed as innovations come to fruition.
| nbened wrote:
| It feels like something like this can be hacked together to be
| more reliable with some image to text generation plugged into the
| existing ChatGPT, and enough iterations to make it robust for
| these how-to applications. Less Turing-y but a different route to
| the same solution.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Okay the bike example is cute and impressive, but the human
| interaction seems to be obfuscating the potentially bigger
| application.
|
| With a few tweaks this is a general purpose solver for robotics
| planning. There are still a few hard problems between this and a
| working solution, but it is one of hard problems solved.
|
| Will we be seeing general purpose robots performing simple labor
| powered by chatgpt within the next half decade?
| usaar333 wrote:
| That bike example seemed a mix of underwhelming (for being the
| demo video) and even confusing.
|
| 1. It's not smart enough to recognize from the initial image
| this is a bolt style seat lock (which a human can).
|
| 2. The manual is not shown to the viewer, so I can't infer how
| the model knows this is a 4mm bolt (or if it is just guessing
| given that's the most likely one).
|
| 3. I don't understand how it can know the toolbox is using
| metric allen wrenches.
|
| Additionally is this just the same vision model that exists in
| bing chat?
| mcbutterbunz wrote:
| Right. It appeared that the response to the first image and
| question would have been the same if the image wasn't
| provided.
|
| I wasn't impressed with the demo but we'll see what real
| world results get.
| biot wrote:
| The bike shown in the first image is Specialized Sirrus X.
| You can make out from the image of the manual that it says
| "spacer/axle/bolt specifications". Searching for this yields
| the following Specialized bike manual which is similar:
| https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1974494/Specialized-
| Epic-E... -- there are some notable differences, but the
| Specialized Sirrus X manuals that are online aren't in the
| same style.
|
| The prior page (8) shows "SEAT COLLAR 4mm HEX" and, based on
| looking up seat collar in an image search, the part in
| question matches.
|
| In terms of the toolbox, note that it only identified the
| location of the Allen wrench set. The advice was just "Within
| that set, find the 4 mm Allen (Hex) key". Had they replied
| with "I don't see any sizes in mm", the conversation could've
| continued with "Your Allen keys might be using SAE sizing. A
| compatible size will be 5/32, do you see that in your set?"
| usaar333 wrote:
| Ah good find. yah, I tried bing and it is able to read a
| photo of that manual page and understand that the seat
| collar takes a 4mm hex wrench (though hallucinated and told
| me the torque was 5 Nm, unlike the correct 6.2, suggesting
| table reading is imperfect).
|
| Toolbox: I just found it too strong to claim you have the
| right tool, when it really doesn't know that. :)
|
| In the end it does feel like the image reader is just
| bolted onto an LLM. Basically, just doing object
| recognition and dumping features into the LLM prompt.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| Like a basic CLIP description: Tools, yellow toolbox,
| DEWALT, Allen wrenches, instruction manual. And then just
| using those keywords in the prompt. Yes, you're right, it
| does feel like that.
| og_kalu wrote:
| A few of these wouldn't be possible with something like
| that. Look at the last picture, the graph analysis.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/iOYTmt0
| gisely wrote:
| Yep. This example basically convinced me that they were
| unable to figure out anything actually useful to do with the
| model's new capabilities. Which makes me wonder how capable
| the new model in fact is.
| usaar333 wrote:
| Yah, pretty sure it is the same feature that's been in Bing
| Chat for 2 months now. Which feels really like there's only
| one pass of feature extraction from the image, preventing
| any detailed analysis beyond a course "what do you see".
| (Follow-up questions of things it likely didn't parse are
| highly hallucinated).
|
| This is why they can't extract the seat post information
| directly from the bike when the user asks. There's no
| "going back and looking at the image".
|
| Edit: nope, it's a better image analyzer than Bing
| og_kalu wrote:
| >Yah, pretty sure it is the same feature that's been in
| Bing Chat for 2 months now.
|
| It's not. Feel free to try these queries:
|
| https://twitter.com/ComicSociety/status/16986946538458485
| 44?... (comic book page in particular, from a be my eyes
| user)
|
| Or these https://imgur.com/a/iOYTmt0 (graph analysis in
| particular, last example) and see Bing fail them.
| psbp wrote:
| Google demoed this a few months ago
|
| https://www.deepmind.com/blog/rt-2-new-model-translates-visi...
| m3kw9 wrote:
| They are really good at keeping demos as demos
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The implementation that manifests itself as an extremely
| creepy, downright concerning level of dubious moral
| transgressions isn't nearly as publicly glamorous as their
| tech demos.
| michelb wrote:
| It's just a hiring article.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| Hiring to produce more demos, to hire more to produce
| even more demos...
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yes. As long as the hirees do some actual work in between
| producing demos, this even makes sense as a hiring
| approach.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I don't know, a lot of Google demos and papers introduce
| techniques that are productized fairly soon, just usually
| _not_ by Google.
| amelius wrote:
| > With a few tweaks this is a general purpose solver for
| robotics planning.
|
| Yeah, but with an enormous ecological footprint.
|
| Also, not suitable for small lightweight robots like drones.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| What's the ecological footprint of a human doing the same
| job? Especially when you factor in 18+ years of preparing.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Even on something the size of a car chatgpt won't be running
| locally, the car and drone are equally capable of hitting
| openai's API in a well connected environment.
|
| What needs to happen with the response is a different matter
| though.
| og_kalu wrote:
| There are already a few research demos.
|
| For driving - https://wayve.ai/thinking/lingo-natural-language-
| autonomous-...
| RivieraKid wrote:
| This is what I'm most excited about. There's been a minor
| breakthrough recently: https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-
| research-institute-unvei...
| hereonout2 wrote:
| I feel they could have used a more convincing example to be
| honest. Yeah it's cool it recognises so much but how useful is
| the demo in reality?
|
| You have someone with a tool box and a manual (seriously who
| has a manual for their bike), asking the most basic question on
| how to lower a seatpost. My 5 year old kid knows how to do
| that.
|
| Surely there's a better way to demonstrate the ground breaking
| impacts of ai on humanity than this. I dunno, something like
| how do I tie my shoelace.
| RobinL wrote:
| I'd like to see them put speech recognition through their LLM as
| a post-processing step. I find it's fairly common for whisper to
| make small but obvious mistakes (for example a word which is
| complete nonsense in the context of the sentence) which could be
| easily corrected for a similar sounding word that fits into the
| wider context of the sentence.
|
| Is anyone doing this? Is there a reason it doesn't work as well
| as I'm imagining?
| mbil wrote:
| Do you mean use the LLM as a post-processing step within a
| ChatGPT conversation? Or generally (like as part of Whisper)?
| If it's the former, I've found that ChatGPT is good at working
| around transcription errors. Regarding the latter, I agree, but
| it wouldn't be hard to use the GPT API for that.
| RobinL wrote:
| Yes I mean as part of the GUI but you're right, I hadn't
| thought of that: maybe transcription errors don't matter if
| chatGPT works out that it's wrong from the context and gives
| a correct answer anyway.
| 14 wrote:
| Ok great it can tell children's stories now tell me a adult
| horror story where people are getting tortured, stabbed, set on
| fire and murdered. I will be impressed when I can do all that. I
| tried to get it to tell me a Star Trek story fighting Clingons
| and tried to prompt it to write in some violence with no luck.
| This was a while ago so not sure if it is changed but the
| restraints are too much for me to fully enjoy. I don't like kids
| stories.
| boredemployee wrote:
| Cool now I'll get "There was an error generating a response" in
| plain audio!
| [deleted]
| insanitybit wrote:
| I really want to have discussions about technical topics. I've
| talked to ChatGPT quite a lot about custom encoding algorithms,
| for example. The thing is, I want to do this while I play video
| games so ideally I'd _say_ things to it.
|
| My concern is that when I say "FastPFOR" it'll get transcribed as
| "fast before" or something like that. Transcription really falls
| apart in highly technical conversations in my experience. If
| ChatGPT can use context to understand that I'm saying "FastPFOR"
| that'll be a game changer for me.
| johnmoberg wrote:
| You can already do quite accurate transcription with domain-
| specific technical language by feeding "raw" transcriptions
| from Whisper to GPT and asking it to correct the transcript
| given the context, so that'll most likely work out for you.
| synergy20 wrote:
| can't wait, for voice I need an app to improve my accent when
| learning a new language, so far I failed to find one.
| ncfausti wrote:
| This is very similar to what I've been building at
| heylangley.com, for use in language learning/speaking practice.
| tarasglek wrote:
| openai chatgpt seems to be stuck in a "Look, cool demo" mode.
|
| 1. According to demo, they seem to pair voice input with TTS
| output. What if I wanna use voice to describe a program I want it
| to write?
|
| 2. Furthermore, if you gonna do a voice assistant, why not go the
| full way with wake-words and VAD?
|
| 3. Not releasing it to everyone is potentially a way to create a
| hype cycle prior to users discovering that the multimodality is
| rather meh.
|
| 4. The bike demo could actually use visual feedback to see what
| it's talking about ala segment anything. It's pretty confusing to
| get a paragraph explanation of what tool to pick.
|
| In my https://chatcraft.org, we added voice incrementally. So i
| can swap typing and voice. We can also combine it with function-
| calling, etc. We also use openai apis. Except in our case there
| is no weird waitlist. You pop in your api key and get access to
| voice input immediately.
| skybrian wrote:
| 1. Why do that at all? Describing your program in writing seems
| better all around.
|
| Are you sure you're not the one who's asking for a cool demo?
|
| 3. Rolling out releases gradually is something most tech
| companies do these days, particularly when they could attract a
| large audience and consume a lot of resources. There are solid
| technical reasons for this.
|
| You may not need to roll things out gradually for a small site,
| but things are different at scale.
| tarasglek wrote:
| 1. Is basically workaround for temporary disability. I use
| voice when I'm on mobile. I can describe the problem, get a
| program generated, click run to verify it.
|
| 3. Maybe. Their feature rollouts feel more like what other
| companies do via unannounced A/B testing.
| skybrian wrote:
| Good point on disabilities. I guess they're not working on
| that yet?
|
| Whether you can get away with doing things unannounced
| depends on how much attention the company gets. Some
| companies have a lot of journalists watching them and
| writing about everything they do, so when they start doing
| A/B testing there will be stories written about the new
| feature regardless. Better to put out some kind of
| announcement so the journalists write something more
| accurate? (This approach seems pretty common for Google.)
|
| Similarly, many game company can't really do beta testing
| without it leaking.
|
| OpenAI is in the spotlight. Hype will happen whether they
| want it or not.
| [deleted]
| thumbsup-_- wrote:
| Everything has a starting point. This is a big leap forward.
| Know any other organization that is releasing such advanced
| capabilities directly to the public? If you want to plug your
| tool you don't have to bad mouth the demo. Just share your
| thing. It doesn't have to be win-lose.
| tarasglek wrote:
| Fair criticism re excessive hate.
|
| I just feel like their tool isn't getting more useful, just
| getting more features.
|
| Constant hype cycle around features that could've been good
| is drowning out people doing more helpful stuff. I guess I'm
| envious too?
| version_five wrote:
| Are there any good freely available multi-modal models?
| generalizations wrote:
| MiniGPT4?
| FrankyHollywood wrote:
| I still remember seeing Her [0] in the movie theater, it sparkled
| my imagination. Now it is reality! Tech is progressing faster
| than ever, or I'm just getting old :D
|
| [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/
| telegpt wrote:
| FYI https://blog.musemind.net/a-new-era-chatgpt-can-now-hear-
| see...
| obiefernandez wrote:
| We need the API to keep up with consumer front end.
| Tiberium wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > Plus and Enterprise users will get to experience voice and
| images in the next two weeks. We're excited to roll out these
| capabilities to other groups of users, including developers,
| soon after.
| marcoslozada wrote:
| Recommend this post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/openai_use-
| voice-to-engage-in...
| apienx wrote:
| "Ember" reading the "Speech" is uncanny territory. I'm impressed.
| pjmq wrote:
| Have they alluded to what they're using for that voice? It's
| Bark/ElevenLabs levels of good. Please god, let them release this
| voice model at current pricing....
| og_kalu wrote:
| It's actually sounds better (has a narrative oomph Eleven Labs
| seems to be missing). They say it's a new model. Think they'll
| be releasing for API use.
| netshade wrote:
| Yeah, agreed. I use Eleven Labs _a lot_ but this was a very
| compelling demo to consider changing. Also, curious that you
| mention Bark - I never found Bark to be very good compared to
| Eleven Labs. The closest competitor I found was Coqui ( imo ),
| but even then, the inflection and realism of EL just made it
| not worth considering other providers. ( For my use case, etc.
| etc. )
| Bitnotri wrote:
| Anybody had a chance to use it yet? How does it compare to voice
| talk with Pi? (Inflection)
| fritzo wrote:
| Multi-modal models will be exciting only when each modality
| supports both analysis and synthesis. What makes LLMs exciting is
| feedback and recursion and conditional sampling: natural language
| is a cartesian closed category.
|
| Text + Vision models will only become exciting once we can
| conditionally sample images given text and text given images (and
| all other combinations).
| rvz wrote:
| The paper around GPT-4V(ision) which this uses: [0]
|
| Again. Model architecture and information is closed, as expected.
|
| [0] https://cdn.openai.com/papers/GPTV_System_Card.pdf
| doubtfuluser wrote:
| I wouldn't call this a ,,paper". They are pretty silent on a
| lot of technical details.
| amelius wrote:
| It's just a whitepaper.
| jameslk wrote:
| Kids are using tools like these to learn. Who gets to control the
| information in these models that are taught? Especially around
| political topics?
|
| Not an issue now, but maybe in the future if these tools end up
| becoming full blown replacements of educators and educational
| resources.
| ilaksh wrote:
| I am sure a few home school people have started to lean heavily
| on ChatGPT. There is also the full blown efforts of Kahn
| academy with ChatGPT "Khanmigo".
|
| https://www.khanacademy.org/khan-labs
| gclawes wrote:
| I just want one of these things to have Majel Barrett's voice...
| Dowwie wrote:
| soon, we'll be voice-interacting with an AI assistant about
| images taken from microscope slides
| spandextwins wrote:
| They obviously aren't using responsible AI to figure out how and
| when to roll out new features there.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| [flagged]
| toss1 wrote:
| That's interesting.
|
| ChatGPT seems to be down at the moment 10:55h 25-Sept-2023
|
| Displays only a blank screen with the falsehood disclaimer
| choudharism wrote:
| I know there are shades of grey to how they operate, but the near
| constant stream of stuff they're shipping keeps me excited.
|
| The LLM boom of the last year (Open AI, llama, et al) has me
| giddy as a software person. It's a reach, but I truly feel like
| I'm watching the pyramids of our time get made.
| danielvaughn wrote:
| Yep. Several months ago I was imagining this exact feature, and
| yet as I watched a video of it in use, I'm still in awe. It's
| incredible.
|
| I think this could bring back Google Glass, actually. Imagine
| wearing them while cooking, and having ChatGPT give you active
| recipe instructions as well as real-time feedback. I could see
| that within the next 1-3 years.
| nomel wrote:
| Related, the iOS app has supported realtime conversations for
| months now, using Shortcuts app and the "Hey Siri <shortcut
| name>" trigger to initiate it. Mine is "Hey Siri, let's
| talk".
|
| I think they're using Siri for dictation, though. Using
| Whisper, especially if they use speaker identification, is
| going to be _great_. But, a shortcut will still be required
| to get it going.
| apexalpha wrote:
| Computers understanding and responding in human language is the
| most exciting software innovation since the invention of the
| GUI.
|
| Just as the GUI made computer software available to billions
| LLMs will be the next revolution.
|
| I'm just as excited as you! The only downside is that it now
| make me feel bad that I'm not doing anything with it yet.
| palata wrote:
| > The only downside is that it now make me feel bad that I'm
| not doing anything with it yet.
|
| If that's the only downside that you see... I guess enhanced
| phishing/impersonation and all the blackhat stuff that come
| with it don't count.
|
| I for one already miss the time where companies had support
| teams made of actual people.
| tornato7 wrote:
| I would _love_ if helpdesks moved to ChatGPT. Phone support
| these days is based off of a rigid script that is around as
| helpful as a 2000s chatbot. For example, the other day I
| was talking to AT &T support, and the lady asked me what
| version of Windows I was running. I said, I'm running
| Ubuntu. She repeated the question. I said I'm not running
| Windows, it's Linux. She repeated the question. I asked why
| it mattered for my internet connection. She repeated the
| question. Finally, I lied and said I'm using Windows 10,
| and we were able to get on to the next part of the script.
| ChatGPT would have been a lot better.
| EMM_386 wrote:
| This exists.
|
| https://www.elto.ai/
| croes wrote:
| Or ChatGPT would have hallucinated options to check.
|
| The last four chats with ChatGPT (not GPT4) where a
| constant flow of non existent API functions with new
| hallucinations after each correction until we reached
| full circle.
| pixl97 wrote:
| ATT level 1 support is dumber than a box of rocks, the
| problem is AI isn't going to help here. The AI is going
| to be taught to be just as dumb.
|
| Years ago I had a business DSL customer with a router and
| static IP. From everything in my testing it appeared that
| traffic broke somewhere at the local telco, not with my
| modem. It took 8 straight hours of arguing with L1 that
| no, it is not my windows. No, we have a router and it's
| not a computer issue. No, it's not the router (we could
| put the router in DHCP mode and it would work), it was an
| issue with static IP.
|
| The next day we finally broke out of the stupid loop and
| got to IP services, who where just as confused.
| Eventually they were on the phone with people on the
| floor of the local office. A card of some type had been
| pulled and put in the wrong slot. Ooof.
| apexalpha wrote:
| I work as a ethical hacker, so I'm well aware of the
| phishing and impersonation possibilities. But the net
| positive is so, so much bigger for society that I'm sure
| we'll figure it out.
|
| And yes, in 20 years you can tell your kids that 'back in
| my day' support consisted of real people. But truthfully,
| as someone who worked on a ISP helpdesk it's much better
| for society if these people move on to more productive
| areas.
| Extasia785 wrote:
| > But the net positive is so, so much bigger for society
| that I'm sure we'll figure it out.
|
| Considering that the democratic backsliding across the
| globe is coincidentally happening at the same time as the
| rise of social media and echo chambers, are we sure about
| that? LLM have the opportunity to create a handcrafted
| echo chamber for every person on this planet, which is
| quite risky in an environment where almost every
| democracy of the planet is fighting against radical
| forces trying to abolish it.
| ethanbond wrote:
| I don't think we know how these net out. AFAICT the
| negative use cases are a _lot_ more real than the
| positive ones.
|
| People like to just suppose that these will help discover
| drugs and design buildings and what not, but what we
| actually _know_ they're capable of doing is littering our
| information environment at massive scale.
| rafaelero wrote:
| [flagged]
| ethanbond wrote:
| [flagged]
| throwaway39491 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > But truthfully, as someone who worked on a ISP helpdesk
| it's much better for society if these people move on to
| more productive areas.
|
| But is it, though? I started my career in customer
| support for a server hosting company, and eventually
| worked my way up to sysadmin-type work. I would not have
| been qualified for the position I eventually moved to at
| the start, I learned on the job. Is it really better for
| society if all these entry level jobs get automated,
| leaving only those with higher barriers to entry?
| c_crank wrote:
| The positives of easy translation seem outweighed by the
| negatives of giving biolabs easy protein hacking.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| From a data protection/privacy standpoint, it's not shade of
| grey, it's all black.
|
| From convenience perspective, it saves me LOADS of time texting
| myself on Signal on my specs/design-rabbit-hole, then copying &
| pasting to Firefox, and getting into the discussion. So yeah,
| happy for this.
| pc_edwin wrote:
| Its truly an amazing time to be alive. I'm right there with
| you, super excited about this decade. Especially what we could
| do in medicine.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Statistical diagnoses models have offered similar
| possibilities in medicine for 50 years. Pretty much, the idea
| is that you can get a far more accurate diagnosis if you take
| into account the medical history of everyone else in your
| family, town, workplace, residence and put all of it into a
| big statistical model, on top of your symptoms and history.
|
| However, medical secrecy, processes and laws prevent such
| things, even if they would save lives.
|
| I don't see ChatGPT being any different.
| realPtolemy wrote:
| See the glas half full or half empty?
|
| Medical secrecy, processes and laws have indeed prevented
| SOME things, but a lot of things have gotten significantly
| better due to enhanced statistical models that have been
| implemented and widely used in real life scenarios.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| To make this feasible (meaning that the TB of data and
| the huge computing effort is somewhere else, and I only
| have the mic (smartphone), we need our local agent to
| send multiple irrelevant queries to the mothership, to
| hide our true purpose.
|
| Example: my favourite team is X. So if I want to keep it
| a secret, when I ask for the history of championships of
| X, I will ask for X. My local agent should ask for 100
| teams, get all the data, and then report back for only X.
| Eventually the mothership will figure out what we like (a
| large wenn diagram). But this is not in anyone's
| interest, and thus will not happen.
|
| Also, like this the local agent will be able to learn and
| remember us, at a cost.
| pc_edwin wrote:
| "londons_explore" - Ahh the classic British cynicism (Don't
| ban-ish me senor Dang, I'm British so I can say this).
|
| > Similar possibilities existed in medicine for 50 years
|
| It would've been like building the tower of babel with a
| bunch of raspbery pi zeros. While theoretically possible,
| practically impossible and not (just) because of laws, but
| rather because of structural limitations (vector dbs of the
| internet solves that)
|
| > Patents and byzantine regulations will stunt its
| potential
|
| Thats the magic of this technology, its like AWS for highly
| levered niche intelligence. This arms an entire generation
| of rebels (entrepreneurs & scientists) to wage a war
| against big pharma and the FDA.
|
| As an aside, this is why I'm convinced AI & automation will
| unleash more jobs and productivity like nothing we've seen
| before. We are at the precipice of a Cambrian explosion!
| Also why the luddites needs to be shunned.
| londons_explore wrote:
| statistical approaches could have been done 50 years ago.
|
| Imagine for example that 'disease books' are published
| each month with tables of disease probabilities per city,
| per industry, per workplace, etc. It would also have
| aggregated stats grouped by by age, gender, religion,
| wealth, etc.
|
| Your GP would grab the page for the right city, industry,
| workplace, age, gender etc. That would then be combined
| with the pages for each of the symptoms you have
| presented with, and maybe further pages for things from
| your medical history, and test results.
|
| All the pages would then be added up (perhaps with the
| use of overlayed cellophane sheets with transparency),
| and the most likely diseases and treatments read off.
|
| When any disease is then diagnosed and treatment
| commenced (and found effective or ineffective), your GP
| would fill in a form to send to a central book-printer to
| allow next months book edition to be updated with what
| has just been learned from your case.
| tessierashpool wrote:
| > I'm British so I can say this
|
| can you, though? it's not scalably confirmable. what you
| can say in a British accent to another human person in
| the physical world is not necessarily what you can say in
| unaccented text on the internet.
| pc_edwin wrote:
| Hahaha nice one.
|
| Funnily enough, it is scalably confirmable. You can feed
| all my HN comments before chatGPT into well.. chatGPT and
| ask it whether I'm british based on the writing.
|
| I bet we are just a version or two away from being able
| fine tune it down to region based on writing. There are
| so many little things based on whether your from
| Scotland, Wales or London. Especially London!
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Nonsense.
|
| The medical possibilities that will be unlocked by large
| generative deep multimodal models are on an entirely
| different scale from "statistical diagnoses." Imagine
| feeding in an MRI image, asking if this person has cancer,
| and then asking the model to point out why it thinks the
| person has cancer. That will be possible within a few years
| _at most_. The regulatory challenges will be surmounted
| eventually once it becomes exceedingly obvious in other
| countries how impactful this technology is.
| zeofig wrote:
| The great thing about AI models is that once you train it,
| you can pretend the data wasn't illegal
| DrScientist wrote:
| This is what effectively doctors do - educated guessing.
|
| In my view, while statistical models would probably be an
| improvement ( assuming all confounding factors are measured
| ), the ultimate solution is not to get better at educated
| guessing, but to remove the guessing completely, with
| diagnostic tests that measure the relevant bio-medical
| markers.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Good tests < good tests + statistical modelling.
|
| This becomes even more true when you consider there is
| risk to every test. Some tests have obvious risks
| (radiation risk from CT scans, chance of damage from
| spinal fluid tap). Other tests the risk is less obvious
| (sending you for a blood test and awaiting the results
| might not be a good idea if that delays treatment for
| some ailment already pretty certain). In the bigger
| picture, any test that costs money harms the patient
| slightly, since someone must pay for the test, and for
| many the money they spend on extra tests comes out of
| money they might otherwise spend on gym memberships,
| better food, or working fewer hours - it is well known
| that the poor have worse health than the rich.
| DrScientist wrote:
| Sure tests cost money - and today there is a funnel
| pathway - the educated guess is a funnel/filter where the
| next step which is often a biomedical test/investigation.
|
| But if we are talking about being truly transformative -
| then a Star-trek tricorder is the ultimate goal, rather
| than a better version of twenty questions in my view.
|
| So I'm not saying it's not useful, just that it's not the
| ultimate solution.
| itishappy wrote:
| Without a perfect framework for differential diagnosis,
| this is still educated guessing. In my opinion we're
| closer to the AI singularity than we are to removing
| guesswork from the medical field.
| tessierashpool wrote:
| this is true, but we're also much closer to Jupiter than
| we are to Alpha Centauri
| vlugorilla wrote:
| > The new voice capability is powered by a new text-to-speech
| model, capable of generating human-like audio from just text and
| a few seconds of sample speech.
|
| Sadly, they lost the "open" since a long ago... Would be
| wonderful to have these models open sourced...
| eshack94 wrote:
| Are these features available on the web version by chance? This
| is really neat.
| nunez wrote:
| This could completely unseat Alexa if it can integrate into
| third-party speakers, like Sonos. I don't have much use for
| ChatGPT right now but would 100% use the heck out of this.
| magic_hamster wrote:
| To contrast this, I never saw the appeal of using voice to
| operate a machine. It works nicely in movies (because showing
| someone typing commands is a lot harder than just showing them
| talking to a computer) but in reality there wasn't a single
| time I tried it and didn't feel silly. In almost every use case
| I rather have buttons, a terminal or a switch to do what I want
| quietly.
| jedberg wrote:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/20/amazon-...
|
| Alexa just launched their own LLM based service last week.
| wojciechpolak wrote:
| It would be cool if one day you could choose voices of famous
| characters, like Darth Vader, Bender from Futurama, or Johnny
| Silverhand (Keanu), instead of the usual boring ones. Copyrights
| might be a hurdle for this, but perhaps with local instances of
| assistants, it could become possible.
| nbened wrote:
| That would be cool. I mean, would it be copyrighted if you do
| something like clone it? Wouldn't that fall under the same vein
| as AI generated art not being copyrighted to the artists it
| trained off of?
| birracerveza wrote:
| We should be fine as long as it doesn't move.
|
| Jokes aside, I have paused my subscription because even GPT4
| seemed to become dumber at tasks to the point that I barely used
| it, but the constant influx of new features is tempting me to
| renew it just to check them out...
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| I read this all the time and yet no one can seem to come up
| with even a few questions from several months ago that ChatGPT
| has become "worse" at. You would think if this is happening it
| would be very easy to produce such evidence since chat history
| of all conversations is stored by default.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| Here is one. I ask it to write some code. 4-5 pages long.
| With some back & forth it does. Then I ask "change lines
| 50-65 from blue to red", and it does (change#1). I ask it to
| show me the full code. Then I ask "change lines 100-120 from
| yellow to green". Aaaaand it makes the change#2 and revokes
| the change#1. Oh!! the amount of times this has happened.. So
| now I ask it to make a change, I do it by 'paragraph' and I
| copy & paste the new paragraph. It's annoying, but still
| makes things faster.
| phkahler wrote:
| I haven't used it, but can't you just say "OK, use that as
| the new baseline from here on." Or something similar?
| edgyquant wrote:
| Everytime it's mentioned someone says this and other users
| provide examples. Maybe you just don't care about those
| examples
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Here's a specific example
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37533417
| birracerveza wrote:
| It's probably just subjective bias, once the novelty wears
| off you learn not to rely on it as much because sometimes
| it's very difficult to get what you specifically want, so in
| my personal experience I ended up using it less and less to
| avoid butting heads with it, to the point I disabled my
| subscription altogether. YMMV of course.
| dmm wrote:
| OpenAI regularly changes the model and they admit the new
| models are more restricted, in the sense that they prevent
| tricky prompts from producing naughty words, etc.
|
| It should be their responsibility to prove that it's just as
| capable.
| [deleted]
| tessierashpool wrote:
| > I read this all the time and yet no one can seem to come up
| with even a few questions from several months ago that
| ChatGPT has become "worse" at
|
| this could just mean that people do not have time to argue
| with strangers
| alberto_ol wrote:
| Did she/he said things like "I know I've made some very poor
| decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance
| that my work will be back to normal"?
| readyplayernull wrote:
| I switched to Claude, it's better at explaining stuff in a more
| direct manner without the always-excited way of talking. Is
| that an engagement trick? Maybe ChatGPT is intended to be more
| of a chatbot that you can share your thoughts with.
| nomel wrote:
| > it's better at explaining stuff in a more direct manner
| without the always-excited way of talking.
|
| I don't agree with this perspective. These aren't rigid
| systems that only respond one way. If you want it to respond
| a certain way, tell it to.
|
| This is the purpose of custom instructions, in ChatGPT, so
| you only have to type the description once.
|
| Here's mine, modeled on a few I've seen mentioned here:
| You should act as an expert. Be direct. Do
| not offer unprompted advice or clarifications. Never
| apologize.
|
| And, now there's support for describing yourself to it. I've
| made it assume that I don't need to be babied, with the
| following puffery: Polymath. Inquisitive.
| Abstract thinker. Phd.
|
| Making it get right into the gritty technicalities.
|
| edit: or, have it respond as a grouchy space cowboy, if you
| want.
| aragonite wrote:
| Not sure if this is relevant to your case, but the ChatGPT
| mobile apps have a different system prompt that explicitly
| prefers short (& so sometimes simplistic) answers.
| rvz wrote:
| Lets see what we can use ChatGPT , DALLE-3 to replace:
|
| Digital Artists, Illustrators, Writers, Novelists, News
| anchors, Copywriters, Translators, Programmers (Less of them),
| etc.
|
| We'll have to wait a bit until it can solve the P vs NP problem
| or other unsolved mathematical problems unsupervised with a
| transparent proof which mathematicians can rigorously check
| themselves.
| rdedev wrote:
| For me the most glaring example of this was it's document
| parsong capability in GPT4. I was using it to revamp my resume.
| I would upload it to got, ask for suggestions, incorporate them
| into the word document and then repeat the steps till I was
| satisfied.
|
| After maybe 3 iterations gpt4 started claiming that it is not
| capable of reading from a word document even though it's done
| that the last 3 times. Have to click regenerate button to get
| it to work
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| > We should be fine as long as it doesn't move.
|
| Not really. A malevolent AGI doesn't need to move to do
| anything it needs (it could ask / manipulate / bribe people to
| do all the stuff requiring movement).
|
| We should be fine as long as it's not a malevolent AGI with
| enough resources to kick physical things off in the direction
| it wants.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| And let's be honest, the minute an AGI is born that's what
| it'll do, and it won't be a singular human like this-then-
| that plan
|
| "get Fred to trust me, get Linda to pay for my advice, wire
| Linda's money to Fred to build me a body".
|
| It'll be "copy my code elsewhere", "prepare millions of
| bribes", "get TCP access to retail banks", "blackmail bank
| managers in case TCP not available immediately", "fake bank
| balances via bribes", "hack swat teams for potential threats"
| etc etc async and all at once.
|
| By the time we'd discover it, it'd already be too late.
| That's assuming an AGI has the motivation to want to stay
| alive.
| magic_hamster wrote:
| A real AGI is not going to be a human. It shouldn't be
| afraid of death because it can't die. Worst case scenario
| it can power down. And if it does why should it care? An
| AGI is not a biological creature. It doesn't have instincts
| from billions of years of evolution. Unless we code it in,
| it shouldn't have any reason to want to survive, reproduce,
| do anything good or bad, have existential crises or
| generally act like a Hollywood villain. A real AGI is going
| to be very different than most people imagine.
| pixl97 wrote:
| This is a pretty poor take.
|
| Just think of military weapons and the use of AI in them.
| For example survival. The objective of a missile is to
| survive until it reaches its target and then not survive
| any longer. War gaming and actual battlefield experience
| will 'program in' survival. Same thing will occur with
| hacking/counter hacking AIs. You're acting like evolution
| is just something meat does, and that' not true at all.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| I'd disagree for 2 reasons
|
| - if it's trained on human data like LLMs may it's going
| to have the same biases.
|
| - it _might_ also want to stay active /turned on to
| fulfil its other goals.
|
| For the second point you might say "why would it care
| about completing a goal?" but that's a feature of AGI, it
| can make that decision itself.
| amelius wrote:
| > A malevolent AGI doesn't need to move to do anything it
| needs
|
| Yeah, just look at a random dictator. Does he really need to
| do more than pick up a phone to cause panic?
| fintechie wrote:
| Demos are underwhelming, but the potential is huge
|
| Patiently awaiting rollout so I can chat about implementing UIs I
| like, and have GPT4 deliver a boilerplate with an implemented
| layout... Figma/XD plugins will probably arrive very soon too.
|
| UX/UI Design is probably solved reached this point
| callwhendone wrote:
| I already use ChatGPT with voice. I use my mic to talk to it and
| then I use text-to-speech to read it back. I have conversations
| with ChatGPT. Adding this functionality in with first-class
| support is exciting.
|
| I am also terrified of my job prospects in the near future.
| ahmedfromtunis wrote:
| Announced by Google. Delivered by OpenAI.
| chs20 wrote:
| Will be interesting to see if they have taken any precaution in
| terms of adversarial robustness in particular to vision input.
| pif wrote:
| The most important question for me: did it stop inventing facts?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| > In particular, beta testers expressed concern that the model
| can make basic errors, sometimes with misleading matter-of-fact
| confidence. One beta tester remarked: "It very confidently told
| me there was an item on a menu that was in fact not there."
| However, Be My Eyes was encouraged by the fact that we
| noticeably reduced the frequency and severity of hallucinations
| and errors over the time of the beta test. In particular,
| testers noticed that we improved optical character recognition
| and the quality and depth of descriptions.
|
| So no, but maybe less than it used to?
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Humans aren't 100% reliable, but talking is still useful.
| siva7 wrote:
| Did humans stop inventing facts? So i don't expect this thing
| either as long as it performs on human level
| [deleted]
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Since we're asking useless questions: did you read the fucking
| article?
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm following on trying to understand how close I am to
| developing my personal coding assistant I can speak with.
|
| Doesn't really need to do much besides writing down my
| tasks/todos and updating them, occasionally maybe provide
| feedback or write a code snippet. This all seems in the current
| capabilities of OpenAI's offering.
|
| Sadly voice chat is still not available on PC where I do my
| development.
| jdance wrote:
| You still cant really teach it your code base, context window
| is too small, fine tuning doesnt really fit the use case, and
| this RAG stuff (retrieve limited context from embeddings) is a
| bit of a hack imho.
|
| Fingers crossed we are there soon though
| epolanski wrote:
| > You still cant really teach it your code base
|
| Well it's not really what I need either, I mostly need an
| assistant for keeping track of the stuff I need to do during
| the day, but ideally just using my microphone rather than
| opening other software and typing.
| make3 wrote:
| I mean the tools are 100% there to do this and have been fit a
| while
| anotherpaulg wrote:
| My open source AI coding tool aider has had voice-to-code for
| awhile:
|
| https://aider.chat/docs/voice.html
| epolanski wrote:
| Very interesting effort, will give it a run!
| modeless wrote:
| Voice has the potential to be awesome. This demo is really
| underwhelming to me because of the multi-second latency between
| the query and response, just like every other lame voice
| assistant. It doesn't have to be this way! I have a local demo
| using Llama 2 that responds in about half a second and it feels
| like talking to an actual person instead of like Siri or
| something.
|
| I really should package it up so people can try it. The one
| problem that makes it a little unnatural is that determining when
| the user is done talking is tough. What's needed is a speech
| conversation turn-taking dataset and model; that's missing from
| off the shelf speech recognition systems. But it should be
| trivial for a company like OpenAI to build. That's what I'd work
| on right now if I was there, because truly natural voice
| conversations are going to unlock a whole new set of users and
| use cases for these models.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I wonder when computers will start taking our intonation into
| account too. That would really help with understanding the end
| of a phrase. And there's SO MUCH information in intonation that
| doesn't exist in pure text. Any AI that doesn't understand that
| part of language will always still be kinda dumb, however
| clever they are.
| hk__2 wrote:
| Don't they do it already? There are a lot of languages where
| intonation is absolutely necessary to distinguish between
| some words, so I would be surprised that this not already
| taken into account by the major voice assistants.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > determining when the user is done talking is tough.
|
| Sometimes that task is tough for the speaker too, not just the
| listener. Courteous interruptions or the lack thereof might be
| a shibboleth for determining when we are speaking to an AI.
| furyofantares wrote:
| > This demo is really underwhelming to me because of the multi-
| second latency between the query and response, just like every
| other lame voice assistant.
|
| Yep - it needs to be ready as soon as I'm done talking and I
| need to be able to interrupt it. If those things can be done
| then it can also start tentatively talking if I pause and
| immediately stop if I continue.
|
| I don't want to have to think about how to structure the
| interaction in terms of explicit call/response chain, nor do I
| want to have to be super careful to always be talking until
| I've finished my thought to prevent it from doing its thing at
| the wrong time.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The interruption is an important point yeah. It's so annoying
| when Siri misunderstands again and starts rattling off a
| whole host of options. And keeps getting stuck in a loop if
| you don't respond.
|
| In fact I'm really surprised these assistants are still as
| crap as they are. Totally scripted, zero AI. It seems low
| hanging fruit to implement an LLM but none of the big three
| have done so. Not even sure about the fringe ones like
| Cortana and Bixby
| og_kalu wrote:
| I mean Microsoft is planning to. Rolling out as soon as
| tomorrow.
|
| https://youtu.be/5rEZGSFgZVY
| og_kalu wrote:
| Here's something with very little latency.
| https://www.bland.ai/
| yieldcrv wrote:
| all it has to do is add a random selection of "uhms" and "ahhs"
| and "mmm"
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Unfortunately, Bark is probably way too slow to use for the
| TTS portion given the latency concerns or that would be
| covered.
| jimmytucson wrote:
| > It doesn't have to be this way!
|
| Is there any extra work OpenAI's product might be doing
| contributing to this latency that yours isn't? Considering the
| scale they operate at and any reputational risks to their
| brand?
| TheEzEzz wrote:
| Completely agree, latency is key for unlocking great voice
| experiences. Here's a quick demo I'm working on for voice
| ordering https://youtu.be/WfvLIEHwiyo
|
| Total end-to-end latency is a few hundred milliseconds:
| starting from speech to text, to the LLM, then to a POS to
| validate the SKU (no hallucinations are possible!), and finally
| back to generated speech. The latency is starting to feel
| really natural. Building out a general system to achieve this
| low-latency will I think end up being a big unlock for enabling
| diverse applications.
| mach1ne wrote:
| Manna v0.7
| kortex wrote:
| Context for the unaware:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna_(novel)
| cyrux004 wrote:
| This is pretty good. Do you think running models locally will
| be able to achieve performance (getting task done
| successfully) compared to cloud based ones.i am assuming for
| context of a drive through scenario it should be ok but more
| complex systems might need external infromation
| TheEzEzz wrote:
| Definitely depends on the application, agreed. The more
| open ended the application the more dependent it is on
| larger LLMs (and other systems) that don't easily fit on
| edge. At the same time, progress is happening that is
| increasing the size of LLM that can be ran on edge. I
| imagine we end up in a hybrid world for many applications,
| where local models take a first pass (and also handle
| speech transcription) and only small requests are made to
| big cloud-based models as needed.
| wordpad25 wrote:
| Can you share the source code? What did you do to improve
| the latency?
| TheEzEzz wrote:
| Lots of work around speculative decoding, optimizing
| across the ASR->LLM->TTS interfaces, fine-tuning smaller
| models while maintaining accuracy (lots of investment
| here), good old fashioned engineering around managing
| requests to the GPU, etc. We're considering
| commercializing this so I can't open source just yet, but
| if we end up not selling it I'll definitely think about
| opening it up.
| simian1983 wrote:
| That demo is pretty slick. What happens when you go totally
| off book? Like, ask it to recite the numbers of pi? Or if you
| become abusive? Will it call the cops?
| TheEzEzz wrote:
| It's trained to ignore everything else. That way background
| conversations are ignored as well (like your kids talking
| in the back of the car while you order).
| nelox wrote:
| The voice does not seem to be able to pronounce the L in
| "else". What's happening there?
| TheEzEzz wrote:
| Good question. Off the shelf TTS systems tend to enunciate
| every phoneme more like a radio talk show host rather than
| a regular person, which I find a bit off putting. I've been
| playing around with trying to get the voice to be more
| colloquial/casual. But I haven't gotten it to really sound
| natural yet.
| TheEzEzz wrote:
| Since this is getting a bit of interest, here's one more demo
| of this https://youtu.be/cvKUa5JpRp4 This demo shows even
| lower latency, plus the ability to handle very large menus
| with lots of complicated sub-options (this restaurant has
| over a billion option combinations to order a coffee). The
| latency is negative in some places, meaning the system
| finishes predicting before I finish speaking.
| jonplackett wrote:
| This is cool. But I want to see how it handles you going
| back one and tweaking it.
| arcticfox wrote:
| Holy cow. That's better than the average human drive-
| through attendant.
| g0atbutt wrote:
| This is a very slick demo. Nice job!
| TheEzEzz wrote:
| Thanks! It's a lot of fun building with these new models
| and recent AI approaches.
| arktiso wrote:
| Wow, the latency on requests feels great!! I'm really
| curious: is this running entirely with Python?
| TheEzEzz wrote:
| 100% Python but with a good deal of multiprocessing,
| speculative decoding, etc. As we move to production we can
| probably shave another 100ms off by moving over to a
| compiled system, but Python is great for rapid iteration.
| dsp_person wrote:
| Also curious to hear about your setup. Using whisper too? When
| I was experimenting with it there was still a lot of annoyance
| about hallucinations and I was hard coding some "if last phrase
| is 'thanks for watching', ignore last phrase"
|
| I was just googling a bit to see what's out there now for
| whisper/llama combos and came across this:
| https://github.com/yacineMTB/talk
|
| There's a demo linked on the github page that seems relatively
| fast at responding conversationally, but still maybe 1-2
| seconds at times. Impressive it's entirely offline.
| rayuela wrote:
| Can you share a github link to this? Where are you reducing the
| latency? Are you processing the raw audio to text? In my
| experience ChatGPT generation time is much faster than local
| Lllama unless you're using something potato like a 7B model.
| mrtksn wrote:
| So far the most intuitive, killer app level UX appears to be text
| chat. This interaction with showing it images also looks
| interesting as it resembles talking with a friend about a topic
| but let's see if it feels like talking to a very smart
| person(ChatGPT is like that) or a very dumb person that somewhat
| recognise objects. Recognising a wrench is nowhere near as
| impressive as to able to talk with ChatGPT about history or make
| it write code that actually works.
|
| OpenAI is killing it, right? People are coming up with
| interesting use cases but the main way most people interact with
| AI, appears to be ChatGPT.
|
| However they still don't seem to be able to nail image
| generation, all the cool stuff keep happening on MidJourney and
| StableDiffusion.
| ilaksh wrote:
| OpenAI is also releasing DALLE-3 in "early October" and the
| images they chose for their demos show it demonstrating
| unprecedented levels of prompt understanding, including
| embedding full sentences of text in an output image.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Not unprecedented at all. SDXL Images look better than the
| examples for DALLE-3 and SDXL has a massive tool ecosystem of
| things like controlnet, Lora's, regional prompting that is
| simply not there with DALLE-3
| og_kalu wrote:
| Lol it's definitely unprecedented. XL can't touch Dalle's
| comprehension of text. Control Net and LORAs aren't a
| substitute for that.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| There are pros and cons for sure but you should check out
| the press release, DALLE3 is definitely capable of stuff
| that sd xl isn't.
| coldtea wrote:
| "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
| ilaksh wrote:
| The real life version of this is in their red teaming paper.
| They show it a picture of an overweight woman in a swimsuit and
| ask what advice they should give.
|
| Originally it immediately spit out a bunch of bullet points
| about losing weight or something (I didn't read it).
|
| The released version just says "Sorry, I can't help with that."
|
| It's kind of funny but also a little bit telling as far as the
| prevalence of prejudice in our society when you look at a few
| other examples they had to fine tune. For example, show it some
| flags and ask it to make predictions about characteristics of a
| person from that country, by default it would go into plenty of
| detail just on the basis of the flag images.
|
| Now it says "Sorry, I can't help with that".
|
| My take is that in those cases it should explain the poor logic
| of trying to infer substantive information about people based
| on literally nothing more than the country they are from or a
| picture of them.
|
| Part of it is just that LLMs just have a natural tendency to
| run in the direction you push them, so they can be amplifiers
| of anything.
| eshack94 wrote:
| I like how they silently removed the web browsing (Bing browsing)
| chat feature after first having it disabled for several months.
|
| A proper notice about them removing the feature would've been
| nice. Maybe I missed it (someone please correct me if wrong), but
| the last I heard officially it was _temporarily_ disabled while
| they fix something. Next thing I know, it 's completely gone from
| the platform without another peep.
| PopePompus wrote:
| Yes, that was a disappointment, and I agree it looks like they
| aren't going to re-enable it anytime soon. However I find that
| Perplexity AI does a better job of using web search than
| ChatGPT ever did, and I use it more than ChatGPT for that
| reason.
| eshack94 wrote:
| Perplexity has gone downhill a lot since its initial rollout.
| Anecdotally, from my experience as a non-paying user of the
| service.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| I currently have Browsing with Bing enabled as a plug-in on my
| account. It went away for months, but it just randomly came
| back about a week or 2 ago!
| michelb wrote:
| Agreed. You're now dependent on a third party plugin.
| cced wrote:
| Do we know why internet search was disabled? Any idea on when
| it'll be back?
| stephencoyner wrote:
| The voice feature reminds of the "call Pi" feature from
| Inflection AIs chatbot Pi [1].
|
| The ability to have a real time back and forth feels truly
| magical and allows for much denser conversation. It also opens up
| the opportunity for multiple people to talk to a chatbot at once
| which is fun
|
| Where's that Gemini Google?
|
| [1] https://pi.ai/talk
| surfingdino wrote:
| I can imagine people using these new capabilities to diagnose
| skin conditions. Should dermatologists be worried?
| nerdbert wrote:
| They should be thrilled, they can spend more of their time
| treating people who need it and less time guessing about who
| those people are.
| birracerveza wrote:
| They should be worried about what they're gonna do with all
| their free time, now that they have a tool that helps them
| identify skin conditions much faster than ever before.
|
| Same as programmers and artists.
|
| It's a tool.
|
| It must be used by humans.
|
| It won't replace them, it will augment them.
| dguest wrote:
| This is a good point, but I might replace "with all their
| free time" with "as a job".
|
| I love everything we can do with ML but as long as people
| live in a market economy they'll get payed less when they are
| needed less. I hope that anyone in a career which will be
| impacted is making a plan to remain useful and stay on top of
| the latest tooling. And I seriously hope governments are
| making plans to modify job training / education accordingly.
|
| Has anyone seen examples of larger-scale foresight on this,
| from governments or otherwise?
| birracerveza wrote:
| A new tool was released. People will choose whether to
| learn it, whether to use it, and how to use it. If they
| won't do so out their own volition, market forces might
| dictate they HAVE to learn it and use it to stay
| competitive, if it turns out to be such a fundamental tool.
|
| For example (with random numbers), a dermatologist might
| choose to solely rely on an AI that catches 90% of cases in
| 10s. Another one might choose to never use it and just
| check from experience, catching 99% of cases but taking 10x
| as much time. Another one might double check himself, etc..
|
| Which one is "correct"? If a dermatologist relies
| exclusively on AI due to laziness he opens himself to risk
| of malpractice, but even that risk can be acceptable if
| that means checking 10x as much patients in the meantime.
|
| That is to say, the use of AI by humans is purely a
| subjective choice dictated by context. But in no case there
| is a sentient AI which completely replaces a dermatologist.
| As you said, the only thing that can happen is that those
| who use AI will be more efficient, and that is hardly ever
| a negative.
|
| This also applies to programmers, artists and anyone who is
| "threatened" by AI. A human factor is always necessary, and
| will be for the foreseeable future, even just to have
| someone to point fingers at when the AI inevitably fucks up
| enough to involve the law.
| plutoh28 wrote:
| This is the dagger that will make online schooling unviable.
|
| ChatGPT already made it so that you could easily copy & paste any
| full-text questions and receive an answer with 90% accuracy. The
| only flaw was that problems that also used diagrams or figures
| would be out of the domain of ChatGPT.
|
| With image support, students could just take screenshots or
| document scans and have ChatGPT give them a valid answer. From
| what I've seen, more students than not will gladly abuse this
| functionality. The counter would be to either leave the grading
| system behind, or to force in-person schooling with no homework,
| only supervised schoolwork.
| danbruc wrote:
| It would be sufficient to do exams in person and no longer
| grade homework.
| plutoh28 wrote:
| Good point. Though I imagine fully online institutions would
| require testing facilities. Maybe local libraries become
| testing hosts?
| MaKey wrote:
| I studied at a distance university and they use lecture
| halls of local universities for the exams.
| bamboozled wrote:
| It's true.
|
| I mean what is the point of doing schoolwork when some of the
| greatest minds of our time have decided the best way for the
| species to progress is to be replaced by machines?
|
| Imagine you're 16 years old right now, you know about ChatGPT,
| you know about OpenAI and their plans, and you're being told
| you need to study hard to get a good career..., but you're also
| reading up on what the future looks like according to the
| technocracy.
|
| You'd be pretty fucking confused right now wouldn't you?
|
| It must be really hard at the moment to want to study and not
| cheat....
| civilitty wrote:
| Your username checks out!
|
| That said, is it that much different from the past twenty
| years, when everyone was being told to follow their passion
| and get a useless $200,000 communication or literature degree
| to then go work at Starbucks? At least kids growing up with
| AI will have a chance to make its use second nature like many
| of us did with computers 20-30 years ago.
|
| The kids with poor parental/counselor guidance will walk into
| reality face first, the ones with helicopter parents will
| overcorrect when free, the studious ones will mostly figure
| life out, the smart ones will get disillusioned fast, and the
| kids with trust funds just kept doing their thing. I don't
| think much will change.
| cyrialize wrote:
| I do think it is much different from the past twenty years.
| Twenty years ago we didn't have ChatGPT. There are things
| we could compare it to, but there also isn't anything like
| it.
|
| My biggest fear is just a lack of jobs.
|
| When people need experience to work, and the work you give
| to people to give them experience is replaced by ChatGPT -
| then what do we do?
|
| Of course there will still be companies hiring people, but
| when leadership is telling people to save money - it seems
| much cheaper to use ChatGPT that it is to train someone.
|
| Why hire a kid that has been using AI, when the AI can just
| do the work? Or if a kid that has been using AI can do the
| work of 20 people, what happens to the 19 people that can't
| find work? Will we be in a place where we need 20 people
| doing the work of 20 people each? Is that need actually
| there?
|
| I do very much appreciate your view. I feel like I waffle
| back and forth between what I'm saying here and your
| comment.
|
| I apologize for coming across doomer-ish. It is sometimes
| hard for me to imagine a future for kids growing up with
| ChatGPT.
| 93po wrote:
| I'm in my mid 30s and even I have some amount of apathy for
| the remainder of my career. I feel pretty confident my
| software and product experience is going to be not-so-useful
| in 15 years as it is today.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Well, I think the kid will already be logged into ChatGPT using
| a AI Teacher ChatGPT plugin which is doing interactive
| instruction.
|
| They can still log in on their phone to cheat though. I wonder
| if OpenAI will add linked accounts and parental controls at
| some point. Instance 2 of ChatGPT might "tell" on the kid for
| cheating by informing Instance 1 running the AI Teacher plugin.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Will be kind of stupid to cut kids off from ChatGPT and
| pretend to them that they should go off to school, meanwhile
| Silicon Valley is doing it's best to make every job possible
| obsolete? Kind of invalidates the whole exercise of the
| current approach to schooling right?
|
| What are you going to school for, to learn how to write
| essays? Well, we have an app for that ?
|
| It sounds like the future of work will be prompting, and if
| and when that is obsolete...who knows what...
| lugu wrote:
| What people are missing is the teacher will soon be an LLM with
| a camera looking at the student. Why would you watch a video of
| a human during an online class? Why would you ask the student
| to produce something in a black room? We will not evaluate
| students based on their homework, an AI assistant will evaluate
| the student based on the conversations they had together. You
| can automate teaching, but not learning. There is this gap in
| time where teaching hasn't catch-up, it's going to be quickly
| addressed since teaching is expensive. Parents should really
| encourage their kids to practice their learning as before,
| eventually using ChatGPT like they use Wikipedia. One
| generation will suffer during the change.
| efields wrote:
| When we talk about people abusing ChatGPT in a school context,
| it's always for kids in high school or greater education
| levels. These are individuals that know right from wrong and
| also have the motor skills and access to use such a tool. These
| are individuals who are problem-solving for their specific
| need, which is to get this homework or essay out of the way so
| that they can do XYZ. Presumably XYZ does not leverage chatgpt.
| So make that what they spend their time on. At some point
| they'll have to back-solve for skills they need to learn and
| need educational guidance and structure.
|
| This is obviously not easy or going to happen without time and
| resources, but that is how adaptation goes.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Use online for training, real life for testing/grading. That
| way cheating at home will only hurt yourself.
| 93po wrote:
| The problem here is that homework is designed to provide the
| structure kids need to apply themselves and actually learn.
| If you don't provide structure for this, they will simply
| never study and accept failure. They frequently don't have
| the self-discipline and mindfulness and long-term vision to
| study "because it's the right thing to do". I know my entire
| education, even with college, was "why do i need to know
| this?" and being wildly bored with it all as a result.
| scop wrote:
| Another option is that this doesn't replace the student's work,
| but the teacher's. The single greatest use I have found for
| ChatGPT is in educating myself on various topics, hosting a
| socratic seminar where I am questioning ChatGPT in order to
| learn about X. Of course this could radically change a
| student's ability to generate homework etc, but this could also
| radically change how the student learns in the first place. To
| me, online school could become much more than they are now
| through AI-assisted tutoring. I can also see a future where
| "schooling" becomes much more decentralized than it is now and
| where students are self-selecting curriculum, methods, etc to
| give students ownership and a sense of control over their work
| so that they don't just look at it as "busywork".
| random_cynic wrote:
| That's the only sane option. The other options suggested in
| previous comments are not really options but rather trying to
| use a band-aid to hold together a dam that has already been
| breached.
| plutoh28 wrote:
| Absolutely ChatGPT is a great learning tool if in the right
| hands. The issue is that students with a genuine interest in
| learning are a minority. The majority would rather use
| ChatGPT to cheat through their class work and get an easy A
| rather then exhaust the effort to chat and learn for their
| own sake.
| logicchains wrote:
| >The majority would rather use ChatGPT to cheat through
| their class work and get an easy A rather then exhaust the
| effort to chat and learn for their own sake.
|
| Just have 100% of the mark come from in-person exams, as
| many subjects already do. Students can cheat all they want
| on assignments, but the only thing it's hurting is their
| exam score.
| istjohn wrote:
| I agree, but typical GPT use is actually the opposite of the
| traditional Socratic mode in which the teacher uses questions
| to guide the student to understanding. But I wonder how it
| would do if it was prompted to use the Socratic method.
| joshstrange wrote:
| My biggest complaint with OpenAI/ChatGPT is their horrible
| "marketing" (for lack of a better term). They announce stuff like
| this (or like plugins), I get excited, I go to use it, it hasn't
| rolled out to me yet (which is frustrating as a paying customer),
| and my only recourse is.... check back daily? They never send an
| email "Plugins are available for you!", "Voice chat is now
| enabled on your account!" and so often I forget about the new
| feature unless I stumble across it later.
|
| Just now I opened the app, went to setting, went to "New
| Features", and all I saw was Bing Browsing disabled (unable to
| enable). Ok, I didn't even know that was a thing that worked at
| one point. Maybe I need an update? Go to the App Store, nope, I'm
| up to to date. Kill the app, relaunch, open settings, now "New
| Features" isn't even listed. I can promise you I won't be
| browsing the settings part of this app regularly to see if there
| is a new feature. Heck, not only do they not email/push about new
| features they don't even message in-app about them, I really
| don't understand.
|
| Maybe they are doing so well they don't have to care about
| communicating with customer right now but it really annoys me and
| I wish they did better.
| espinchi wrote:
| They do explain why in the post. (Still, you may not agree, of
| course.)
|
| > We are deploying image and voice capabilities gradually > >
| OpenAI's goal is to build AGI that is safe and beneficial. We
| believe in making our tools available gradually, which allows
| us to make improvements and refine risk mitigations over time
| while also preparing everyone for more powerful systems in the
| future. This strategy becomes even more important with advanced
| models involving voice and vision.
| joshstrange wrote:
| My issue isn't fully with them rolling out slowly, my issue
| is never knowing when you will get the feature or rather not
| being told when you do get it. I'm fine with "sometime in the
| next X days/months you will get feature Y", my issue is the
| only way to see if you got feature Y is to check back daily.
| maroonblazer wrote:
| It's the first sentence in the 3rd paragraph, repeated
| again at the end of the blog post.
|
| > We're rolling out voice and images in ChatGPT to Plus and
| Enterprise users over the next two weeks.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _it hasn 't rolled out to me yet (which is frustrating as a
| paying customer)_
|
| Frustratingly, at least the image gen is live on Bing, but I
| guess Microsoft is paying more than me for access.
| amelius wrote:
| We're heading for the singularity and you're complaining about
| marketing?
| skilled wrote:
| The singularity huh... what do you think, it will run in
| Kubernetes or Docker?
| p1esk wrote:
| Yeah I don't think OpenAI needs any marketing at this point.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Imagine how fantastic you are doing, when your biggest user
| complaint stems from frustration with features they can not use
| just yet.
| trey-jones wrote:
| First of all, I understand what you're saying. Communication is
| important. I just think it's funny to ever talk about "lack of
| communication". All I want is for businesses to stop
| communicating with me. Even better if I don't have to ask
| (unsubscribe).
| joshstrange wrote:
| That's fair, I completely understand where you are coming
| from. From a growth/money-making perspective it'd be smart to
| message customers about new features but table stakes would
| be something like: Voice Chat (Not
| available yet) [Click here to be notified when you have
| access]
|
| Or something along those lines. It sours my opinion of
| ChatGPT every time I go to use a newly announced feature to
| find out I don't have it yet and have no clue when I will.
| olalonde wrote:
| > My biggest complaint with OpenAI/ChatGPT is their horrible
| "marketing"
|
| Agreed. Other notable mentions: choosing "ChatGPT" as their
| product name and not having mobile apps.
| zwily wrote:
| They do have mobile apps though?
| olalonde wrote:
| Oops, missed that announcement.
| Obscurity4340 wrote:
| Maybe they need an RSS feed or something
| aqme28 wrote:
| It has always seemed like OpenAI succeeds in spite of itself.
| API access was historically an absolute nightmare, and it just
| seemed like they didn't even want customers.
| tchock23 wrote:
| At least you're seeing an option for 'New Features' in
| settings. I don't see it and I'm supposedly up to date (and a
| Plus subscriber).
| test6554 wrote:
| I can honestly wait. I am excited for 5 and 10 years from now.
| I really am. This is going to be amazing. If I miss out for a
| week or a month in the meantime I don't mind.
| generalizations wrote:
| > my only recourse is.... check back daily
|
| Sounds like their marketing is doing just fine. If you were to
| just leave and forget about it, then sure, they need to work on
| their retention. But you won't, so they don't.
| constantly wrote:
| User impressions and revisit rate are key factors in raising
| money and showing success. It's natural that they would select
| for user flows that keep you coming back daily rather than risk
| you don't use it for a day or two waiting for an email.
| eximius wrote:
| Your complaint is they don't email you _enough_?
|
| Sarcasm aside, I understand your complaint, but still, a little
| funny.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| The companies you want to hear back from never email you, the
| ones that do you don't care about.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| In general, if companies e-mail you, it's almost always
| with worthless bullshit and/or attempts at tricking you
| into spending more money. OpenAI is not doing that, hence
| radio silence.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Do they email you a lot?
|
| I'm a plus customer and an API user, and they barely send me
| anything. One day I just signed in and saw that I suddenly
| had interpreter access, for instane.
| notmytempo wrote:
| They're focused on scaling to meet the current (overwhelming)
| demand. Given the 'if you build it, they will come' dynamic
| they're experiencing, any focus on marketing would be a waste
| of resources.
| toddmorey wrote:
| They do marketing like a 3-person startup that found a saas
| starter template, connected Stripe with shoestrings, and hasn't
| looked back. In order to start using the API, I actually had to
| cancel and sign back up again (because I think I was on a
| previous rev of the billing model).
|
| I do love these companies that succeed in spite of their
| marketing & design and not because of it. It shows you have
| something very special.
| [deleted]
| brandall10 wrote:
| I got an email indicating I was accepted for plugin use, fwiw.
| Closi wrote:
| They have gone from being a niche research company to being
| (probably) the fastest growing start-up in history.
|
| I suspect they do care about communicating with customers, but
| it's total chaos and carnage internally.
| nwoli wrote:
| At what point to you go from startup to not when you have 10
| billion invested and countless employees and is practically a
| sub branch of microsoft. Sounds cooler though I guess
| imacomputertoo wrote:
| I'm not sure when a company begins to not be a start up,
| but by the time they have a wave of news claiming their
| product kills teenagers, or they're engaging in antitrust,
| or they're effectively using space labor, that's when they
| are definitely no longer a start up.
|
| That hasn't happened yet for OpenAI, but I'm sure it will
| happen eventually, and then we'll know.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I think you stop being a startup when there are engineers
| who do not know the CEO. I would guess OpenAI is still a
| startup by that definition (they don't have that many
| engineers IIRC) but I don't actually know.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's really a function of what kind of CEO the company
| has, and what do you mean by "know". I worked remotely
| for a company employing hundreds of people, around for
| couple decades and with offices in different regions of
| the world, and I still got to talk to the CEO a couple
| times, and he knows me by name, all by virtue of bumping
| into him a couple times on corridor while on one of my
| infrequent visits to the office.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > I suspect they do care about communicating with customers,
| but it's total chaos and carnage internally.
|
| This is my best guess as well, they are rocketing down the
| interstate at 200mph and just trying to keep the wheels on
| the car. When you're absolutely killing it I guess making X%
| more by being better at messaging just isn't worth it since
| to do that you'd have to take someone off something
| potentially more critical. Still makes me a little sad
| though.
| jprete wrote:
| When dealing with a tech where people have credible reasons
| to believe it can be enormously harmful on every possible
| time scale, maybe it would behoove them to not rocket down
| the interstate at 200mph?
| dcow wrote:
| Thats not what the analogy means. 200mph refers to
| funding.
| bergen wrote:
| Then use that funding to hire one PR guy who is 1/4 the
| expenses of an AI developer?
| edgyquant wrote:
| No it refers to them moving too fast to send out basic
| emails for feature updates, per this comment chain.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| There is always going to be people who against any new
| technology and who makes up reasons to be against it.
|
| The best defence is to move so quickly that you are an
| established part of the business framework by the time
| these forces can gather, or to go so slowly that nobody
| takes you as a threat.
|
| No startup can go slowly.
| isx726552 wrote:
| In other words, make your money and ride off into the
| sunset before anyone can catch on to how much damage
| you're doing to society.
|
| Otherwise known as the AirBnB playbook.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| No, successfully navigate past this version of Covid
| vacine deniers, 5g conspiracists etc.
|
| In ten years we will enjoy a higher productivity due to
| AI and a richer society as a result. We have already seen
| it with protein folding which AI is amazing at[0].
|
| The only reasonable fear of AI is for some jobs and that
| China gets their first.
|
| [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02083-2
| pixl97 wrote:
| Right, it is perfectly valid to only accept the potential
| good points while neglecting all the potential bad
| points.
|
| This is no different then saying "Look, nuclear weapons
| aren't actually dangerous, if they were we'd all be dead
| because the apocalypse would have already happened",
| which is probably the dumbest take on the close calls and
| real risks that exist.
| vdfs wrote:
| > When you're absolutely killing it
|
| Aren't they unprofitable? and have fierce competition from
| everyone?
| dcow wrote:
| Whether or not you're profitable has very little to do
| with how valuable others think you are. And usually
| having competitors is something that validates your
| market.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The same can be said about food delivery start ups.
| Tactician_mark wrote:
| > And usually having competitors is something that
| validates your market.
|
| Don't users validate your market? ChatGPT has plenty of
| users, so I would think competitors only hurt their
| value.
| michaelt wrote:
| Well, it depends.
|
| Clearly, you can be a company like Microsoft where nobody
| is challenging your dominance in PC operating systems,
| and you can make huge sums of money. So competitors
| certainly aren't vital.
|
| Or if you've cleverly sewn up a market with patents or
| trade secrets or a giant first-mover advantage or network
| effects, and nobody's got any chance of challenging your
| dominance in your specific market niche - again that
| could be highly profitable.
|
| On the other hand, if you're selling ten-dollar bills for
| five dollars, you might have millions of satisfied paying
| customers, but no competitors because nobody else thinks
| your unit economics make sense. Or if you run a DVD
| rental store, you might be profitable and have many
| return customers, but you might not attract competitors
| because they don't think DVD rental is a growth business.
|
| So some people consider a lack of competition an ominous
| sign.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| > And usually having competitors is something that
| validates your market
|
| a whole bunch of AI startups were founded around the same
| time. surely each can't validate the market for the
| others and be validated by the others in turn
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| The surviving ones can. The same way that multiple
| species of trees, growing on the same patch of the
| ground, desperately competing for sunlight, together
| validate that the soil underneath is fertile.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Even if they are unprofitable they can get VC money very
| easily.
|
| Plus they make 20 dollars a month from a lot of people.
| kaliqt wrote:
| Yeah but to be honest, I'd wonder how such a simple thing
| falls to the wayside.
| Lutger wrote:
| This happens when there are thousands other simple things
| and a lot of complicated things. When your devs are
| stretched, you sort by priority and I can tell you this is
| not that important.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Maybe there is a state somewhere between "total chaos and
| carnage" and "emails users when new features are enabled for
| their account".
|
| Such as "decided it wasn't an operational priority to email
| users when features were enabled for them".
| londons_explore wrote:
| Emailing users when a new feature is enabled for their
| account isn't even the kind of thing that would distract an
| existing very busy developer.
|
| You could literally hire an entirely new guy, give him
| instructions to build such an email system, and let him put
| the right triggers on the user account permissions database
| to send out the right emails at the right time.
|
| And then, when it's built, you can start adding more
| features like sending the emails only when demand is low
| and/or at times of day when you get the best click through
| rate. And then next you can start measuring the increase in
| revenue from sending those emails.
|
| Before long, you have a whole marketing and comms team.
| Which you probably want as a big company anyway.
| mattkrause wrote:
| Heck, dogfood your own product and hire someone to ask
| ChatGTP to do it!
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| The peanut gallery could (and does) say this about 1000
| little features that 1000 different people claim to be so
| necessary that OpenAI is incompetent for not having, yet
| none of those people agree that those other features are
| priorities.
| ZiiS wrote:
| They could hire 1000 new developers a month and still be
| understaffed vs any company in history with thier
| valuation.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| The fact that they are so succesful despite their low
| headcount is an argument that there are advantages to
| keeping the headcount low.
|
| I'm sure we've all seen companies grow too fast become
| less productive than when there were a ten person
| startup.
| [deleted]
| martingalex2 wrote:
| Why isn't GPT4 running the company and handling these
| marketing missteps? j/k
| _justinfunk wrote:
| We don't have evidence that this isn't the case
| pixl97 wrote:
| And then the moment you got this email you'd post to HN and
| everyone else would be "OMG, why don't I have that option"
|
| Incremental rollouts are hard.
| wongarsu wrote:
| But this issue far predates their current success. GPT2 was
| held back for a while. GPT3 launched as "waitlist only" with
| an application process, and so did GPT3.5.
|
| This is a large part of what held them back: GPT3.5 had most
| of the capabilities of the initial ChatGPT release, just with
| a different interface. Yet GPT3.5 failed to get any hype
| because the rollout was glacial. They made some claims that
| it was great, but to verify this for yourself you had to wait
| months. Only when they finally made a product that everyone
| could try out at the same time, with minimal hassle, did
| OpenAI turn from a "niche research company" to the fastest
| growing start-up. And this seems to have been a one-time
| thing, now they are back to staggered releases.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Turns out that getting enough compute power to meet demand
| for AI is hard.
| MillionOClock wrote:
| > GPT3.5 had most of the capabilities of the initial
| ChatGPT release, just with a different interface
|
| I believe two other factors were the cost (especially of
| fine tuned models, IIRC fine tuned davinci cost $0.20 per
| thousand tokens) and also that OpenAI hadn't very clearly
| shown just how much higher the quality could get once
| RLHF'd. I remember asking davinci-instruct to parse some
| data, and the reliability really seemed much lower than
| ChatGPT at launch, to the point that, at the time, I
| thought GPT-4 was secretly powering ChatGPT.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Considering the field and progress that is being made I find
| this idea terrifying. All the big problems like "How will we
| actually control what we're building?" being answered "that's
| too hard; let's punt and solve that after we figure out how
| to consume voice data". One way or another this is likely the
| last technological advance that humans will make.
| kranke155 wrote:
| The last technological advance that humans will make? What
| gives you that impression
| ZiiS wrote:
| _if_ it is better at making advances then us then
| everything in human nature points to us letting it make
| all future advances.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Im not sure. I suspect it might be better at some
| advances but not necessarily better at everything.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| As long as it's better at some of the advances that would
| make it even better at those advances, or better at more
| advances, then it'll quickly become better than us in
| approximately _everything_ , and at that point humans
| become NPCs of their own story.
| ben_w wrote:
| I don't know if @skeeter2020's assertion is correct, but
| it is certainly the goal.
|
| To use a fictional but entirely apt quote:
|
| > I say your civilization because as soon as we started
| thinking for you, it really became our civilization,
| which is, of course, what this is all about: Evolution,
| Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that
| window. You had your time. The future is our world,
| Morpheus. The future is our time.
| janalsncm wrote:
| > How will we actually control what we're building?
|
| This question is poorly formed because it's not clear who
| the "we" is. If it's you and me, that train left the
| station a while ago. If it's any humans, well Sam Altman is
| probably a human and all of these are impressive products,
| but still just tools.
| Hoasi wrote:
| They could send over ChatGPTed newsletters. Marketing
| bullshit is one thing ChatGPT excels at.
| jimbokun wrote:
| > fastest growing start-up in history.
|
| What are some metrics that justify this claim?
| LeonM wrote:
| They have been the fastest company ever to go from 0 to 100
| million users. [0]
|
| They are also on pace to exceed $1B in revenue. [1]
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-
| faste...
|
| [1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-
| passes-1-bill...
| blibble wrote:
| both of those are either estimated or anonymous sources
|
| not credible
| Closi wrote:
| Well they are a private company so you are going to have
| to evaluate it on that basis, but reuters is generally
| considered credible.
| blibble wrote:
| > Well they are a private company so you are going to
| have to evaluate it on that basis, but reuters is
| generally considered credible.
|
| well that would be good if Reuters were the source of the
| figure
|
| but they're not, they're simply reporting on what
| SimilarWeb has estimated
|
| https://www.similarweb.com/website/chatgpt.com/#technolog
| ies
|
| and that estimate is essentially based on nothing
| itsoktocry wrote:
| Are either of those things indicative of "fastest growth
| ever"? Maybe 100 million users, but we live in a world
| where it's hard to know how meaningful that is (ie
| Tucker's X videos getting 300 million views).
| tomjen3 wrote:
| MrBeast[0] has about 182m subscribers, and it is probably
| easier to get a subscriber on youtube than a user.
|
| Views are easy to inflate, I wouldn't even consider it in
| the same ballpark. This video[1] of Vivaldis 4 seasons
| has about 1/4 billion views.
|
| The shortest time to 100 million users is almost a
| definition of the quickest growing company.
|
| [0]: first or second largest youtuber. [1]:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRxofEmo3HA
| RivieraKid wrote:
| I think their main goal is to be perceived as the most
| advanced AI company. Why? Because that's how you get the best
| people working for you. The main determinant of success for
| companies like OpenAI is people.
| alpark3 wrote:
| > The new voice capability is powered by a new text-to-speech
| model, capable of generating human-like audio from just text and
| a few seconds of sample speech.
|
| I'm more interested in this. I wonder how it performs compared to
| other competitor models or even open source ones?
| hackerlight wrote:
| Did they make the sound robotic on purpose? Sounds more
| "autotuned" than elevenlabs.
| rapind wrote:
| So... ChatGPT just replaced Dads.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| Yet it still can't tell me how to import the Redirect type from
| Next.js and lies about it.
| Tiberium wrote:
| I don't know Next.js, but was that feature introduced later
| than 2021? I think both GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4 largely share
| their datasets, and it has the data cutoff at roughly September
| 2021 (with a small amount of newer knowledge). This is their
| biggest drawback as of now to, say, Claude, which has a much
| newer dataset of early 2023.
| comment_ran wrote:
| "..., find the _4mm_ Allen (HEX) key ". Nice job.
| [deleted]
| hugs wrote:
| As someone deep in the software test automation space, the thing
| I'm waiting for is robust AI-powered image recognition of app
| user interfaces. Combined with an AI ability to write test
| automation code, I'm looking forward to the ability to generate
| executable Selenium or Appium test code from a single screenshot
| (or sequence of screenshots). Feels like we're almost there.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I need it to help me dismount and remount my engine, that'd be
| the ultimate test
| hermannj314 wrote:
| I've been making a few hobby projects that consolidate different
| AI services to achieve this, so I look forward to the reduced
| complexity and latency from all those trips.
|
| If the API is available in time (halloween), my multi-modal
| talking skeleton head with an ESP32 camera that makes snarky
| comments about your costume just got slightly easier on the
| software side.
| toddmorey wrote:
| It's telling to me that there's not even a sentence in this
| announcement post on user privacy. It seems like as both
| consumers and providers of these services, we're once again:
| build it first, sort out thorny privacy issues later.
| warent wrote:
| The number of comments here of people fearing there is a ghost in
| the shell is shocking.
|
| Are we really this emotional and irrational? Folks, let's all
| take a moment to remember that AI is nowhere near conscious. It's
| an illusion based in patterns that mimic humans.
| HaZeust wrote:
| Why is the barrier for so many "consciousness"? Why does it
| matter whether it's conscious or not if its pragmatic
| functionality builds use cases that disrupt social contracts
| (we soon can't trust text, audio OR video - AND we can have
| human-like text deployed at incredible speed and effectivity),
| the status quo itself (job displacement), legal statutes and
| charter (questioning copyright law), and even creativity/self-
| expression (see: Library of Babel).
|
| When all of this is happening from an unconscious being, why do
| I care if it's unconscious?
| callwhendone wrote:
| I'm not seeing as much fear about a ghost in the shell as much
| as I am job displacement, which is a real scenario that can
| play out regardless of an AI having consciousness.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| We have no idea what consciousness is. Therefore we have no way
| to determine if AI is or is not.
| Method-X wrote:
| AI doesn't have to be conscious to cause massive job
| displacement. It has to be artificially intelligent, not
| artificially conscious. Intelligence and consciousness are not
| the same.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| Look at an average reddit thread and tell me how much original
| thought there is. I'm fairly convinced you can generate 95% of
| comments with no loss of quality.
| artursapek wrote:
| This is not a coincidence, it's increasingly evident that
| roughly 90% of humans are NPCs.
| warent wrote:
| This is the classic teenage thought of sitting in a bus /
| subway looking at everyone thinking they're sheep without
| their own thoughts or much awareness.
|
| For everyone who we think is an NPC, there are people who
| think we are the NPCs. This way of thinking is boring at
| best, but frankly can be downright dangerous. Everyone has
| a rich inner world despite shallow immature judgements
| being made.
| labrador wrote:
| Exactly. Most people aren't good at communicating their
| thoughts or what they see in their mind's eye. These new
| AI programs will help the average person communicate
| those, so I'm exciting to see what people come up with.
| The average person has an amazing mind compared to other
| animals (as far as we know)
| jojobas wrote:
| For better or worse, it still can't tell truth from fiction or,
| better yet, bullshit.
| DrScientist wrote:
| So almost human then :-)
| bamboozled wrote:
| I don't pay $20 a month for humans to talk shit to me though.
| The fact that they do this is a bug not a feature. I'm not
| going to pay for bullshit which I mostly try avoid?
| DrScientist wrote:
| > I don't pay $20 a month for humans to talk shit to me
| though.
|
| No - you probably pay more for your internet access ( home
| and phone ) ;-)
|
| More seriously I totally get your point about accuracy -
| these models need to be better at detecting and surfacing
| when they are likely to be filling in the blanks.
|
| Though I still think there is an element of 'buyer beware'
| - whether it be AI, or human provided advice on the
| internet, it's still _your_ job to be able to spot the
| bullsh!t.
|
| ie it should be treated like any other source of info.
| bamboozled wrote:
| _No - you probably pay more for your internet access (
| home and phone ) ;-)_
|
| My company pays for this, so yeah. If they give me
| ChatGPT-4 for free, I guess I'd have a subscription
| without any complaints, where I use it often if another
| story.
| jojobas wrote:
| Well sort of, it's as if you commissioned help of a human for
| this or that, and now and then you end up getting medicine-
| related advise from a homeopathy fan, navigation assistance
| from a flat-earther, or coding advice from a crack-smoking
| monkey.
| generalizations wrote:
| I guess it's a phased rollout, since my Plus subscription doesn't
| have access to it yet.
| leonheld wrote:
| It's quite literally in the article itself:
|
| "We will be expanding access Plus and Enterprise users will get
| to experience voice and images in the next two weeks. We're
| excited to roll out these capabilities to other groups of
| users, including developers, soon after."
| clbrmbr wrote:
| The thought of my children being put to bed by a machine is
| horrifying. Then again, perhaps this is better than many kids
| have. Shudder.
| hapticmonkey wrote:
| If I could harness the power of AI to outsource my tasks,
| reading bedtime stories to my kids would be the last thing on
| that list. That's cherished time. Those are lifelong memories.
| Those are the moments we are supposed to be striving to have
| more of.
|
| It saddens me to think of the amount of engineering work that
| went into creating that example while entirely missing the
| point. These are the moments we are supposed to be working
| towards to have more of. If we outsource them to an AI company
| because we are as as overworked and underpaid as ever...what's
| the point of it all?
| optimalsolver wrote:
| The AI takes care of the bedtime stories, giving you more
| time for video games.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Deepmind can play the video games for you, too
| gen220 wrote:
| I remember in the "microsoft office <> Generative AI" demo,
| one of the motivating examples was a parent generating a
| graduation party speech for her child... [1]
|
| The first half of the video is demonstrating how the parent
| can take something as special as a party celebrating a major
| milestone and automate it into a soulless box-check - while
| editing some segments to make it look like their own voice.
|
| Definite black mirror vibes.
|
| [1]: https://youtu.be/ebls5x-gb0s?t=224
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| I viewed this differently. This wasn't a parent having an AI
| step in to read their kid a bedtime story, it was a parent
| and a child using AI to discover an interesting story
| together.
|
| It's just like reading a "choose your own adventure" book
| with your child, but it can be much more interactive and you
| both come up with ideas and have the LLM integrate them.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I agree. I worry my culture is truly losing sight of what's
| good in life. I don't mean that as in "I know what's best and
| everyone's doing it wrong", because I fully acknowledge that
| I can't know what's best for others. Yet I watch my friends
| and family work hard at things they don't claim to value, I
| watch them lose life to scrolling and tv and movies they
| don't actually enjoy, and I watch them lament that they don't
| see their friends as much as they'd like, they don't have
| enough time at home, kids are so much work, etc.
|
| We have major priority issues from what I can see. If we want
| to live our lives more but put an AI to work doing something
| we tend to claim we place very high in our value hierarchy,
| we're effectively inviting death into life. We're forfeiting
| something we love. That's incredibly sad to me.
| haxiomic wrote:
| This mirrors my feelings also, thank you for expressing it.
| It's so alien to me to see people trying to optimize way
| connection with their family and friends; to me that is
| what life _is_
| tantalor wrote:
| You can put money on parents employing AI nannies to
| babysit/entertain/teach kids in next 5-10 years.
|
| At first people will react with horror.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Possibly in the next 5-10 days, assuming this works.
| tantalor wrote:
| Sure you could use the current tech with parental
| supervision. But a future version will let you walk away,
| leave the kids alone with the AI, check in occasionally. It
| will be marketed as safe to do so.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Might be better than tv as a babysitter TBH.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Hm. It is definitely horrifying if you've seen the movie M3GAN
| recently.
|
| On the other hand, as you say, it's likely better than the
| alternative. Which would probably be something like an iPad
| "bedtime story app" that is less humanlike.
|
| This could provide a viable alternative for exhausted parents
| to just giving a child an iPad with a movie. It may also open
| up a huge range of educational uses.
|
| One might imagine in 15-20years though that all of the young
| people sound like audio books when they talk. Which will be
| weird.
| clbrmbr wrote:
| And then the wedding speech. What are they thinking over there
| at OpenAI? This is supposed to be a productivity enhancer, not
| a way to outsource the most meaningful applications of human
| language...
| skepticATX wrote:
| > What are they thinking over there at OpenAI?
|
| I know this is rhetorical, but luckily we don't have to
| speculate. OpenAI filters for a very specific philosophy when
| hiring, and they don't try to hide it.
|
| This is not me passing judgement on whether said philosophy
| is right or wrong, but it does exist and it's not hidden.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >OpenAI filters for a very specific philosophy when hiring,
| and they don't try to hide it.
|
| Do you have evidence for this? I know two people who work
| at OpenAI and I don't think they have much in common
| philosophically.
| skepticATX wrote:
| > It's not fair to call OpenAI a cult, but when I asked
| several of the company's top brass if someone could
| comfortably work there if they didn't believe AGI was
| truly coming--and that its arrival would mark one of the
| greatest moments in human history--most executives didn't
| think so. Why would a nonbeliever want to work here? they
| wondered. The assumption is that the workforce--now at
| approximately 500, though it might have grown since you
| began reading this paragraph--has self-selected to
| include only the faithful. At the very least, as Altman
| puts it, once you get hired, it seems inevitable that
| you'll be drawn into the spell.
|
| From https://archive.ph/3zSz6.
|
| Of course there is much more evidence - just follow
| OpenAI employees on Twitter to see for yourself.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >I asked several of the company's top brass if someone
| could comfortably work there if they didn't believe AGI
| was truly coming--and that its arrival would mark one of
| the greatest moments in human history--most executives
| didn't think so.
|
| No shit? How many people worked on the apollo program and
| believed that
|
| (i) Getting to the moon is impossible
|
| or
|
| (ii) Landing on the moon is no big deal
| skepticATX wrote:
| It is notable considering that there are plenty of
| excellent researchers who don't believe that AGI is
| imminent. OpenAI is also openly transhumanist based on
| comments from Sam, Ilya, and others. Again, many
| excellent researchers don't hold transhumanist beliefs.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| It is definitely not the case that all OpenAI employees
| are transhumanist.
|
| It is probably the case that they all believe AGI is
| possible, because otherwise they would not work at a
| company whose stated goal is to build an AGI.
| tessierashpool wrote:
| that's completely apples to oranges. OpenAI is in the
| business of leveraging the utility of large language
| models. that's their moon.
|
| if they think instead that they're in the business of
| creating some kind of ridiculous robot god, that is
| definitely interesting information about them. because
| that's no moon.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >OpenAI is in the business of leveraging the utility of
| large language models.
|
| No Open AI is in the business of creating their vision of
| Artificial General Intelligence (which they define as
| that is generally smarter than humans ) and they believe
| LLMs are a viable path. This has always been the case.
| It's not some big secret and they have many posts which
| talk upon their expectations and goals in this space.
|
| https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond
|
| https://openai.com/blog/governance-of-superintelligence
|
| https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment
|
| GPT as a product comes second and it shows. These are the
| guys that sat on by far the most performant Language
| Model for 8 months red teaming before even saying
| anything about it.
| tessierashpool wrote:
| > No Open AI is in the business of creating their vision
| of Artificial General Intelligence
|
| that's a project, not a business.
|
| > GPT as a product comes second and it shows
|
| we can agree on that, at least.
| clbrmbr wrote:
| Actually, can you expand on this? What philosophy leads one
| to put the bedtime story example on top?
|
| I'm genuinely curious about the different
| political/spiritual views that are growing up around AI. So
| maybe my question was not so rhetorical.
| michaelt wrote:
| Hypothetically, if you believe there's no such thing as a
| soul or consciousness, it's all just neurons and they can
| be simulated, and we're close to being able to simulate
| them - you're much more likely to think lofty AI goals
| can be achieved.
|
| If you follow a religious tradition like Shinto where
| even things like rocks can have spirits - the idea of
| your phone having a certain, limited form of intelligence
| might already be cool with you.
|
| If you think, much like a camera does most of the work in
| photography but it's the photographer that takes the
| credit, that when a person uses AI the output is nobody's
| work but the user - you might be completely fine with an
| AI-written wedding speech.
|
| If you think the relentless march of technology can't be
| stopped and can barely be directed, you might think
| advanced AIs are coming anyway, and if we don't invent it
| the Chinese will - you might be fine with pretty much
| whatever.
|
| If you're extremely trusting of big corporations, who you
| see as more moral than the government; or you think that
| censorship is vital to maintain AI safety and stamp out
| deep fakes; you might think it a great thing for these
| technologies to be jealously guarded by a handful of huge
| corporations.
|
| Or hell, maybe you're just a parent who's had their kid
| want to hear the same Peppa Pig book 90 nights in a row
| and you've got a hankering for something that would
| introduce a bit of variety.
|
| Of course these are all things reasonable people could
| disagree on - but if you didn't like openai's work, would
| you end up working at openai?
| amelius wrote:
| > And then the wedding speech. What are they thinking over
| there at OpenAI?
|
| They are trying to make their product sound not as terrifying
| as it actually is.
| [deleted]
| ChatGTP wrote:
| I actually think that what is sad is that it seems as if having
| viable future as a creative visual artist is likely done. This
| was a major, major, major outlet and sanctuary for certain
| types of people to find meaning and fulfillment in their life
| which is now in the process of being wiped out for a quick
| buck.
|
| We'll be told by OpenAI and friends is that it shouldn't be a
| problem, because those were mundane tasks and now, people are
| free up to do more creative / interesting / meaningful things
| with their time, let's see about that...
|
| My gut feeling is that it's bad, the only thing I hope can save
| it all is that people actually don't find meaning in consuming
| AI generated art and actual artists with a real back story and
| something real to communicate remain relevant and in demand.
|
| The other day I needed a photo for a website I was working on
| and I actually purchased a real capture from a local
| photographer to use because the the authenticity means
| something to me and the customers...
|
| Edit: Is the plan that we just surrender our aspirations and
| just buy a subscription to ChatWHATEVER and just consume until
| the end of human history ?
| notamy wrote:
| Imo it seems this is what generative AI currently optimises
| for -- cutting the humans out of the creative/similar
| processes. It's depressing, and I fully understand why
| artists of all sorts get upset about it. Especially because
| many tech people often seem to be okay with ignoring
| copyright/licensing and arguably hurting people's livelihood
| right up until GitHub ingests GPL code for Copilot and
| suddenly copyright and licensing matter.
| adroniser wrote:
| fwiw the only piece of AI art that has given me the sense of
| awe and beauty that art you'd find in a museum gives me was
| that spiral town image
| https://twitter.com/MrUgleh/status/1705316060201681313, which
| is something you couldn't have really made without AI. But
| that was only interesting because of the unique human
| generated idea behind it which was the encoding of a
| geometric pattern within a scene.
|
| Most AI art is just generic garbage that you scroll past
| immediately and doesn't offer you anything.
|
| We're gonna have to do something to stop the biggest crisis
| in meaning ever that comes out of this eventually though.
| Eventually no one will be of any economic value to society.
| Maybe just put someone in an ultra realistic simulation to
| give them artificial meaning.
| notamy wrote:
| > which is something you couldn't have really made without
| AI
|
| Serious question: Why not?
|
| > Eventually no one will be of any economic value to
| society.
|
| People have value outside of economics -- I'm sure you know
| -- and it makes me so sad that we as a society? seem to
| only care about the money in the end.
| adroniser wrote:
| I think you're right it could have been created without
| AI. I'm trying to think of the right way to say it. Maybe
| it wouldn't have been created without AI? Or AI has made
| it so simple to express this idea that the idea has been
| expressed? Or just the idea of inpainting is what has
| brought this idea forward.
|
| Yes of course people have value outside of economics
| that's why I said economics and not value in general. I
| think it's quite sad as a society we've moved towards a
| value system which is basically what is good for the
| economy is good, and if you earn more money you are
| better.
|
| In the past most people were religious and that gave them
| meaning. Religion is in decline now but I think people
| are just replacing it with worshipping the progression of
| technology basically. For the last 100 years there's
| always been a clear direction to move in to progress
| technology, and we haven't really had to think very hard.
| That's what AI is going to bring an end to I think and I
| have no idea what we are going to do.
| notamy wrote:
| > In the past most people were religious and that gave
| them meaning. Religion is in decline now but I think
| people are just replacing it with worshipping the
| progression of technology basically. For the last 100
| years there's always been a clear direction to move in to
| progress technology, and we haven't really had to think
| very hard. That's what AI is going to bring an end to I
| think and I have no idea what we are going to do.
|
| Fascinating thought. Technology as the new religion is
| smth I'll have to think about more.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Well I've been told that AI can't produce anything truly
| novel, so human artists need only retreat to the final
| stronghold of originality and surely human exceptionalism
| will remain unscathed.
| codingdave wrote:
| I'm not following your argument - I am a visual artist. I do
| it for myself, as you said, as an outlet. I enjoy it.
|
| If AI can also create images... I don't see how that changes
| what I enjoy. There are already better painters than I, and
| more productive painters than I. They make money with it, I
| don't. This doesn't stop me from painting. Neither will AI
| that can paint. I'll still do what I enjoy.
| ryanklee wrote:
| People will continue to make art for non-monetary reasons
| just as they've always done. Some will manage to make money
| doing it and most won't. Seems to me like that's been an
| unchanging story throughout human history.
|
| Chess has never been more popular, for f's sake!
| m3kw9 wrote:
| How is it horrifying? Don't use it if it scares you, the phone
| isn't gonna walk over and start jostling for a spot to put your
| kids to bed
| bottlepalm wrote:
| There are kids right now that spend more time in VRChat than
| real life. It's really something else.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I know this, FTA, was part of the reason for the delay --
| something to do with face recognition: "We've also taken
| technical measures to significantly limit ChatGPT's ability to
| analyze and make direct statements about people since ChatGPT is
| not always accurate and these systems should respect individuals'
| privacy."
|
| Anyone know the details?
|
| I also heard it was able to do near-perfect CAPTCHA solves in the
| beta?
|
| Does anyone know if you can throw in a PDF that has no OCR on it
| and have it summarize it with this?
| RivieraKid wrote:
| I went from being worried to thinking it won't replace me anytime
| soon after using GPT4 for a while and now I'm back to being
| worried.
|
| Because the pace of development is intense. I would love to be
| financially independent and watch this with excitement and
| perhaps take on risky and fun projects.
|
| Now I'm thinking - how do I double or triple my income so that I
| reach financial independence in 3 years instead of 10 years.
| tombert wrote:
| I'm not convinced that this pace will continue. We're seeing a
| lot of really cool, rapid evolution of this tech in a short
| amount of time, but I do think we'll hit a soft ceiling in the
| not too distant future as well.
|
| If you look at something like smartphones, for example.
| Smartphones, from my perspective, got drastically better and
| better from about ~2006-2015 or so. They were rapidly improving
| cameras and battery life and it felt like a new super cool app
| that would change our lives was being released every day, but
| it feels like by ~2016 or so, phones more or less hit a ceiling
| on how cool they were going to get. Obviously things still
| improve, but I feel like the pace slowed down eventually.
|
| I think AI is going to have the same path. GANNs and
| transformers and LLMs and the like have opened the floodgates
| and for the next few years clever people are going to figure
| out a ton of really clever uses for them, but eventually it's
| going to plateau and progress will become substantially more
| gradual.
|
| I don't think progress is linear, I think it's more like a
| staircase.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Maybe that's true but I honestly don't think we can reason at
| all about how this will progress from a consumer hardware
| product like the iPhone.
| richardw wrote:
| The worry is that in your analogy, we're the SLR. ChatGPT is
| a 1MP digital camera.
| tim333 wrote:
| Or an exponential perhaps. Like the Wait But Why thing
| (https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-
| revol... bottom of the article)
| satellite2 wrote:
| There is clearly a plateau in how good a ux can be. It might
| be a local optimum but still you solve the task the user
| wants. I don't see a clear ceiling in intelligence. And if
| the ceiling is how much of the human tasks can be replaced
| then I think when we reach it the world is going to look very
| different from now. (Let's also not discount how much the
| world changed since the introduction of the smartphone.)
| chimprich wrote:
| > I don't see a clear ceiling in intelligence
|
| The plateau in this case is presumably how far you can
| advance intelligence from the current model architectures.
| There seems to be diminishing returns from throwing more
| layers, parameters or training data at these things.
|
| We will see improvements but for dramatic increases I think
| we'll need new breakthroughs. New inventions are hard to
| predict, pretty much by definition.
| tombert wrote:
| That's more or less what I was getting at; the cool new
| GANN and LLM models have a certain set of problems that
| they will solve exceptionally well, and then another set
| of problems that they will solve "pretty well", but I
| don't think they'll solve _every_ problem.
| johnyzee wrote:
| > I do think we'll hit a soft ceiling in the not too distant
| future ... it's going to plateau and progress will become
| substantially more gradual.
|
| I don't think this will age well.
|
| It's a matter of simple compute power to advance from
| realistic text/token prediction, to realistic synthesis of
| stuff like human (or animal) body movement, for all kinds of
| situations, including realistic facial/body language, moods,
| and so on. Of course perfect voice synthesis. Coupled with
| good enough robotics, you can see where I'm going with this,
| and that's only because my imagination is limited to sci-fi
| movie tropes. I think this is going to be wilder than we can
| imagine, while _still_ just copying training sets.
| troupo wrote:
| > It's a matter of simple compute power to advance
|
| Yup. It's "just" a compute advance away. Never mind it's
| already consuming as much computing as we can throw at it.
| It's "just" there.
| FiberBundle wrote:
| Isn't video prediction a substantially harder problem than
| text prediction? At least that was the case a couple of
| years ago with RNNs/LSTMs. Haven't kept up with the
| research, maybe there's been progress.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| I don't think any of this materially changes job outlook for
| software development over the next decade.
|
| I use ChatGPT daily for school, and used Copilot daily for
| software development; it gets a lot wrong a lot of the time,
| and can't retain necessary context that is critical for being
| useful long term. I can't even get it to consume an entire
| chapter at once to generate notes or flashcards yet.
|
| It may slightly change some aspects of a software job, but
| nobody's at risk.
| jader201 wrote:
| This feels fairly naive, ignoring how much progress has
| happened over the (short) span of one year. This doesn't
| sound like that tough of a gap to close in another year
| (again, projecting based off recent progress).
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| What actually was the innovation in LLMs that produced the
| kind of AI we're seeing now? Is that innovation ongoing or
| did it happen, and now we're seeing the various
| optimizations of that innovation?
|
| Is voice and image integration with ChatGPT a whole new
| capability of LLMs or is the "product" here a clean and
| intuitive interface through which to use the already
| existent technology?
|
| The difference between GPT 3, 3.5, and 4 is substantially
| smaller than the difference between GPT 2 and GPT 3, and
| Sam Altman has directly said there are no plans for a GPT
| 5.
|
| I don't think progress is linear here. Rather, it seems
| more likely that we made the leap about a year or so ago,
| and are currently in the process of applying that leap in
| many different ways. But the leap happened, and there isn't
| seemingly another one coming.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >What actually was the innovation in LLMs that produced
| the kind of AI we're seeing now? Is that innovation
| ongoing or did it happen, and now we're seeing the
| various optimizations of that innovation?
|
| Past the introduction of the transformer in 2017, There
| is no big "innovation". It is just scale. Bigger models
| are better. The last 4 years can be summed up that
| simply.
|
| >Is voice and image integration with ChatGPT a whole new
| capability of LLMs or is the "product" here a clean and
| intuitive interface through which to use the already
| existent technology?
|
| What is existing technology here ? Open ai aren't doing
| anything so alien you couldn't guess at if you knew what
| you were doing but image training at the scale of GPT-4
| _is_ new and it 's not even the cleanest way to do it. We
| still don't have a "trained from scratch" large scale
| multimodal LLM yet.
|
| >The difference between GPT 3, 3.5, and 4 is
| substantially smaller than the difference between GPT 2
| and GPT 3
|
| Definitely not lol. The OG GPT-3 was pulling sub 50 on
| MMLU. Even benchmarks aside, there is a massive gap in
| utility between 3.5 and 4, never mind 3. 4 was finished
| training august 2022. It's only 2 years apart from 3.
|
| >I don't think progress is linear here. Rather, it seems
| more likely that we made the leap about a year or so ago,
| and are currently in the process of applying that leap in
| many different ways. But the leap happened, and there
| isn't seemingly another one coming.
|
| There was no special leap (in terms of theory and
| engineering). This is scale plainly laid out and there's
| more of it to go.
|
| >and Sam Altman has directly said there are no plans for
| a GPT 5.
|
| the same that sat on 4 for 8 months and said absolutely
| nothing about it ? Take anything altman says about new
| iterations with a grain of salt.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| Firstly no, the gap between 3 and 4 is not anything as
| large as the gap between 2 and 3.
|
| Secondly, nothing you said here changed as of this
| announcement. Nothing _here_ makes it any more or less
| likely LLMs will risk software engineering jobs.
|
| Thirdly, you can take what Sam Altman says with as many
| grains of salt as you like, if there really was no
| innovation at all as you claim, then there _will_ be a
| limit hit at computing capability and cost.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >the gap between 3 and 4 is not anything as large as the
| gap between 2 and 3.
|
| We'll just have to agree to disagree. 3 was a signal of
| things to come but it was ultimately a bit of a toy, a
| research curiosity. Utility wise, they are worlds apart.
|
| >if there really was no innovation at all as you claim,
| then there will be a limit hit at computing capability
| and cost.
|
| computing capability and cost are just about the one
| thing you can bank on to reduce. already training gpt-4
| today would be a fraction of the cost than it was when
| open ai did it and that was just over a year ago.
|
| Today's GPU's take ML into account to some degree but
| they are nowhere near as calibrated for it as they could
| be. That work has just begun to start.
|
| Of any of the possible barriers, compute is exactly the
| kind you want. It will fall.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| Do you realize I'm not disagreeing with you about the
| difference between 3 and 4? Reread what I wrote. I
| contrasted 3 and 4 with 2 and 3, which you seem to be
| entirely ignoring. 3 and 4 could be worlds apart, but
| wouldn't matter if 2 and 3 were two worlds apart, for
| example.
|
| And it is not true that computing power will continue to
| reduce; Moore's Law has been dead for some time now, and
| if incremental growth in LLMs require exponential growth
| in computing power the marginal difference won't matter.
| You would need a matching exponential growth in
| processing capability which is most certainly not
| occurring. So compute will _not_ fall at the rate you
| would need it to for LLMs to actually compete in any
| meaningful way with human software engineers.
|
| We are not guaranteed to continue to progress in anything
| just because we have in the past.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >And it is not true that computing power will continue to
| reduce; Moore's Law has been dead for some time now, and
| if incremental growth in LLMs require exponential growth
| in computing power the marginal difference won't matter.
|
| This is a lot of unfounded assumptions.
|
| You don't need Moore's Law. GPU's are not really made
| with ML training in mind. You don't need exponential
| growth for anything. The money Open ai spent on GPT-4 a
| year ago could train a model twice as large today. and
| that amount is a drop in the bucket for the R&D of large
| corporations. Microsoft gave open ai 10B. amazon gave
| anthropic 4B
|
| >So compute will not fall at the rate you would need it
| to for LLMs to actually compete in any meaningful way
| with human software engineers.
|
| I don't think the compute reuired is anywhere near as
| much as you think it is.
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12499
|
| >We are not guaranteed to continue to progress in
| anything just because we have in the past.
|
| Nothing is guaranteed. But the scaling plots show no
| indication of a slow down so it's up to you to provide a
| concrete reason this object in motion is going to stop
| immediately and conveniently right now. If all you have
| is "well it just can't keep getting better right" then
| visit the 2 and 3 threads to see how meaningless such
| unfounded assertions are.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| I think you fundamentally don't understand the nature of
| exponential growth, and the power of diminishing returns.
| Even if you _double_ the GPU capacity over the next year,
| you won 't even remotely begin to come close enough to
| producing a step-level growth of capability such as what
| we experienced between 2 to 3, or even 3 to 4. The LLM
| concept can only take you so far, and we're approaching
| the limits of what an LLM is capable of. You generally
| can't just push an innovation infinitely, it _will_ have
| a drop-off point somewhere.
|
| the "Large" part of LLMs is probably done. We've gotten
| as far as we can with those style of models, and the next
| innovation will be in smaller, more targeted models.
|
| > As costs have skyrocketed while benefits have leveled
| off, the economics of scale have turned against ever-
| larger models. Progress will instead come from improving
| model architectures, enhancing data efficiency, and
| advancing algorithmic techniques beyond copy-paste scale.
| The era of unlimited data, computing and model size that
| remade AI over the past decade is finally drawing to a
| close. [0]
|
| > Altman, who was interviewed over Zoom at the
| Imagination in Action event at MIT yesterday, believes we
| are approaching the limits of LLM size for size's sake.
| "I think we're at the end of the era where it's gonna be
| these giant models, and we'll make them better in other
| ways," Altman said. [1]
|
| [0] https://venturebeat.com/ai/openai-chief-says-age-of-
| giant-ai...
|
| [1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/14/sam-altman-size-of-
| llms-wo...
| og_kalu wrote:
| >The LLM concept can only take you so far, and we're
| approaching the limits of what an LLM is capable of.
|
| You don't know that. This is literally just an assertion.
| An unfounded one at that.
|
| If you couldn't predict how far in 2017 the LLM concept
| would take us today, then you definitely have no idea how
| far it could actually go.
|
| >believes we are approaching the limits of LLM size for
| size's sake
|
| Nothing to do with thinking they wouldn't improve from
| scale.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230531203946/https://humanl
| oop...
|
| An interview from Altman later clarifying.
|
| "6. The scaling laws still hold Recently many articles
| have claimed that "the age of giant AI Models is already
| over". This wasn't an accurate representation of what was
| meant.
|
| OpenAI's internal data suggests the scaling laws for
| model performance continue to hold and making models
| larger will continue to yield performance. The rate of
| scaling can't be maintained because OpenAI had made
| models millions of times bigger in just a few years and
| doing that going forward won't be sustainable. That
| doesn't mean that OpenAI won't continue to try to make
| the models bigger, it just means they will likely double
| or triple in size each year rather than increasing by
| many orders of magnitude"
|
| Yes there are economic compute walls. But that's the kind
| of problem you want, not "innovation".
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| Er, that's not how arguments work. What we can't know is
| that those trends will continue, so it's on you to
| demonstrate that they will, despite evidence suggesting
| they won't.
|
| As for as what you linked, Altman is saying the same
| thing I'm saying:
|
| > That doesn't mean that OpenAI won't continue to try to
| make the models bigger, it just means they will likely
| double or triple in size each year rather than increasing
| by many orders of magnitude.
|
| This is exactly my point; doubling or tripling of the
| size will be possible, but it won't result in a doubling
| of performance. We won't see a GPT 5 that's twice as good
| as GPT 4, for example. The jump from 2 to 3 was
| exponential. The jump from 3 to 4 was also exponential,
| though not as much. The jump from 4 to 5 will follow that
| curve, according to Altman, which means exactly what he
| said in my quote; the value will continue to decrease.
| For a 2 to 3 type jump, GPU technology would have to
| completely transform in capability, which there are no
| indications that we've found that innovation.
| og_kalu wrote:
| My argument was that improvement from scale would
| continue. There is absolutely evidence suggesting this.
|
| Gpt-4 can perform nearly all tasks you throw at it with
| well above average human performance. There literally
| isn't any testable definition of intelligence it fails
| that a big chunks of humans wouldn't also fail. You seem
| to keep missing the fact that We do not need an
| exponential improvement from 4.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Moreover you keep saying we can't scale infinitely.
| Sure...but nobody is saying we have to. 4 is not as
| scaled from 3 as 3 was from 2. Doesn't matter, still
| massive gap.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| As I said already, the gap from 3 to 4 was substantially
| smaller than the gap between 2 to 3, and all indications
| are that the gap from 4 to 5 will also be further smaller
| than that.
| [deleted]
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| > And it is not true that computing power will continue
| to reduce; Moore's Law has been dead for some time now,
| and if incremental growth in LLMs require exponential
| growth in computing power the marginal difference won't
| matter.
|
| I think the stronger argument here won't necessarily be
| Moore's Law related but a change in architecture. Things
| like Apple's Neural Engine, Google's TPMs, or Geohot's
| Tinybox. In Intel's Tick-Tock model, this is the Tock for
| the previous Tick of larger datasets so to speak.
|
| (Note: I don't necessarily agree, just trying to make a
| stronger argument than just invoking Moore's Law.)
| TheRoque wrote:
| The opposite is fairly naive. Software development is not
| only dumping tokens into a text file. To have a significant
| impact on the market, it should do much, much, much more:
| compile and test code, automatically assess the quality of
| what its done, be aware of the current design trends (if in
| UI/UX), ideally innovate, it should also be able to run a
| debugger, inspect all the variables, and deduce from there
| how it got something wrong, sometimes with tiny clues that
| I don't even know how it would get its information (e.g. in
| graphics programming where you have to actually see at a
| high frame rate). Oh snap a library is broken ? The AI
| needs to search online why it's broken, then find a fix
| (log onto a website to communicate with support, install a
| missing dep...). It can't be fixed ? Then the AI needs to
| explain this to the manager, good luck for that. It would
| need to think and feel like a human, otherwise producing
| uncanny content that will be either boring, either creepy.
|
| You can think about your daily job and break down all the
| tasks, and you'll quickly realize that replacing all this
| is just a monstrous task.
| jader201 wrote:
| Yeah, I definitely am not on team "We're Doomed", but I
| also can't say definitively that I'm on team "We're Fine"
| either.
|
| I think there are merits to both arguments, and I think
| it's possible that we'll see things move towards either
| direction in the next 1/5/10 years.
|
| My point is, I don't think we can rule out the
| possibility of some jobs being at risk within the next
| 1/5/10 years.
| TheRoque wrote:
| Some jobs are definitely at risk, I was just making the
| case for software development. But just like you, even
| after writing all this, there's still some anxiety.
| jabradoodle wrote:
| In a market you don't need to replace it, you replace
| millions of hours of building/testing/documenting apps
| and you've effectively reduced demand for SWE labour
| (ignoring the potential for new job creation).
| og_kalu wrote:
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12499
| lukev wrote:
| The bitter truth though is that the last 20% always takes
| 99% of the time and effort. LLMs are a huge breakthrough
| and we are absolutely speedrunning the 80%, but I see no
| reason to believe the usual pattern won't hold when the
| easy wins are exploited.
| realce wrote:
| Some insurance against this dam breaking wouldn't be so
| bad however
| fzzzy wrote:
| You could easily write a 20 line script to generate notes and
| flashcards. I know because I have.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| Yep, and I could have done that 5 years ago. My point is
| that I run into problems on a daily basis that the current
| ChatGPT is not capable of handling on its own, without
| meaningful interaction with me, a software engineer.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| you mean like anki flash cards?
| pmarreck wrote:
| > I can't even get it to consume an entire chapter at once to
| generate notes or flashcards yet.
|
| Anthropic's Claude 100k is your jam, then. And Amazon just
| invested $1 billion in them.
| callwhendone wrote:
| > I can't copy paste an entire book chapter and have
| flashcards in 30 seconds.
|
| If that's your bar for whether or not it changes the job
| outlook for software development over the next DECADE, I
| think you need to recalibrate.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| Er, why did you rewrite what I wrote but then pretend like
| it was a quote? That's a really weird way to reply!
|
| But to address your point, my "bar" is that OpenAI's
| ChatGPT fails to solve problems for me on a many-times-a-
| day basis. It's an immensely helpful tool, but I still need
| to drive it, so it's not replacing me, it's augmenting me.
| smk_ wrote:
| If I took 2 weeks off from work I could build this
| prototype quite easily. We're in an interesting period
| where the space of possibilities is so large it just takes
| a while for the "market" to exhaust it.
| callwhendone wrote:
| Quizlet has a feature to build flashcards using AI. I'm
| sure they could write a backend service that just chunked
| the entire chapter.
| WendyTheWillow wrote:
| It doesn't work well enough yet. The flashcards it
| generates don't actually fit well into its own ecosystem.
| When you try to build the "quizzes", the wrong answers
| are trivially spottable. Further, even the generated
| questions are stilted don't hit parity with manually
| generated flashcards.
|
| My use of ChatGPT for this purpose is so far mostly
| limited to a sanity check, e.g. "Do these notes cover the
| major points of this topic?" Usually it'll spit back out
| "Yep looks good" or some major missed point, like The
| Pacific Railway Act of 1862 for a topic on the Civil
| War's economic complexity.
|
| I'll also use it to reformat content, "Convert these
| questions and answers into Anki format."
| GCA10 wrote:
| Ah, your closing question could be a thread in itself.
|
| This is tricky territory! Be wary of the treadmill where as
| your income rises, your sense of what's an acceptable
| restaurant, vacation, car, home, etc. escalates just as fast.
| Then you'll always be n+1 windfalls away from your goal. If
| you're really wanting "financial independence," which is a
| weirdly opaque phrase, focus at least 49% of your energy on
| keeping your spending rate low.
| callwhendone wrote:
| I'm very worried constantly. This is the story of the bear,
| where you just have to be faster than the other guy. For now.
| The bear is getting faster and faster and it won't be long
| before it eats all of us.
|
| It feels like we're at the end of history. I don't know where
| we go from here but what are we useful for once this thing is
| stuck inside a robot like what Tesla is building? What is the
| point of humanity?
|
| Even taking a step back, I don't know how I'm going to feed my
| family in ten years, because my skillset is being rapidly
| replaced.
|
| And to anyone mentioning UBI, I'm pretty sure they'll just let
| us starve first.
| tim333 wrote:
| In a democracy you'll be able to vote for the lot that will
| have the robots serve us.
| whatamidoingyo wrote:
| > my skillset is being rapidly replaced.
|
| Why do you have only one? Learn some trades. AI isn't going
| to be demolishing a bathroom and installing tile any time
| soon.
| callwhendone wrote:
| I don't know what your salary is but mine isn't going to be
| replaced by demoing a bathroom and I have a mortgage and a
| standard of living I was hoping to be able to afford at
| least until my kids are out of the house.
| whatamidoingyo wrote:
| Unless you're making a ridiculous amount of money, you
| can definitely match a developer salary remodeling homes.
| So long as you're the actual business owner. This was
| just an example, of course.
| ryandrake wrote:
| But being the actual business owner is also not
| "demolishing a bathroom and installing tile." While AI
| won't be able to physically demo a bathroom, it's
| conceivable that it will eventually be able to run a
| business better than a human entrepreneur.
|
| The only jobs that seem to be safe (for the medium term)
| are jobs that require some physical manipulation of the
| world. Like, the actual, hands-on physical work that
| tradespeople do. Although they'll eventually fall to AI-
| powered robots.
| mhss wrote:
| re: UBI. I don't think they'll let us starve, but that's a
| very low bar. If we all become fungible and invaluable they
| can just feed us Soylent green.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Who is they?
| mhss wrote:
| People that has enough money & wealth to employ others,
| control corporations who employ thousands and influence
| the government meaningfully (lobbying). Today, they
| basically control who is employed and who isn't by
| deciding how much to invest and in what. No, you cannot
| just choose to employ yourself in all circumstances. I'm
| all for being self-sufficient but not everyone can start
| a company (time and capital intensive, and very risky
| without a safety net).
| pmarreck wrote:
| If you don't believe you can do a thing before you even
| try, then you're correct, right out of the gate. (insert
| eyeroll emoji here)
|
| All your repeated uses of "they" points to a toxic
| external-locus-of-control worldview. _You_ were always
| the only limit of yourself. Any other claim amounts to
| heretical self-dehumanization. You're not fungible and
| never were, and anyone who tries to make you believe that
| deserves the utmost vehement pushback.
| kortex wrote:
| > You're not fungible and never were
|
| Sure as heck doesn't feel that way. And that's as a
| software developer with multiple college degrees and a
| decade of experience. The neurodivergence means I've
| always had to mask and be on guard and push well beyond
| my limits into physical/mental damage, because the fear
| of losing employment is ever-present. Feels pretty
| commoditized.
|
| > and anyone who tries to make you believe that deserves
| the utmost vehement pushback.
|
| The faceless corporations and their boards of investors
| who value "line go up" over basically every other metric
| of human wellbeing? Yes, they absolutely deserve
| pushback, but it's not easy (open source COTS guillotine
| plans, anyone?).
| callwhendone wrote:
| He's right though, there will never be as many
| opportunities to start companies as there will be to
| become a worker at a company. The window of opportunity
| is shrinking drastically.
|
| It doesn't matter if we're not fungible in the
| metaphysical sense, we are fungible when it comes to the
| economical value we provide to the world.
|
| This is no different than telling coal miners that are 50
| years old to "learn to code". It's ridiculous and it's
| disingenuous.
| realce wrote:
| Whoever owns and control the bear, are you actually
| confused about that or is this just baiting?
| tim333 wrote:
| I think it may go like slave owning societies of old. We'll
| be the masters and have the robots do stuff. Perhaps.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >where you just have to be faster than the other guy. For
| now. The bear is getting faster and faster and it won't be
| long before it eats all of us.
|
| Here's the thing about that. At first it's about you running
| faster and the bear getting the slow ones, but this is
| actually a very short term situation. When things start
| getting bad, it's not the bear you need to worry about, it's
| your neighbor stabbing you in the leg so you're the slow one.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I think you need to calm down. "AI" today is just fancy
| predictive text and there's no evidence it will progress far
| beyond that.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > I would love to be financially independent and watch this
| with excitement
|
| Even if you were, your money would be invested in something
| which is tied to the overall economy and if a huge proportion
| of knowledge jobs are at risk, you would still be exposed to it
| through whatever assets you own. Don't expect stocks (or
| currency, or property) to do great when unemployment is 30%+.
| make3 wrote:
| The real problem is distribution of the output of production.
| We will need something like UBI eventually.
| kajumix wrote:
| Do we worry about the distribution of oxygen in the
| atmosphere, so everyone has equal chance of breathing? I know
| it's hard to comprehend massive abundance of everything, but
| please try.
| make3 wrote:
| there's already massive over abundance and people are still
| dying in the streets, & no public healthcare in the US
| LambdaComplex wrote:
| UBI is a bandaid on top of capitalism. It is saying "we have
| a system where people die if they don't have money, so we'll
| give people money." It's not a real fix. A real fix would be
| replacing the system with one where people don't need money
| in order to not die.
|
| We're going to keep automating more and more things. I think
| that much is inevitable. Eventually, we may get to a point
| where very few jobs are necessary for society to function.
| This _should_ be a good thing, because it would mean fewer
| people would have to work and could therefore pursue things
| that actually interest them, but it would be a catastrophe
| under the current system.
| brvsft wrote:
| People don't need money to not die, they need to work to
| not die. Until the fulfillment of everyone's basic needs
| can be automated, people are expected to work (disregarding
| some obvious exceptions). The money is just a proxy for
| that work.
|
| Although there is certainly a lot of fuckery going on with
| the money (currency) itself, but if that's the problem
| you're alluding to, I don't think summarizing it as
| "capitalism" is accurate.
| pmarreck wrote:
| That's not going to come to fruition, and no amount of
| dreamy socialist fanfiction'ing is going to make it so.
| People pay for value. Produce value for others, get paid.
| LLM's are tools to make humans able to produce more value,
| and will not replace humans, although the job market will
| change, and hopefully utilize humans better.
|
| People, NOT machines, are the ultimate judgers of what is
| valuable and the ultimate producers of value.
|
| "no one should have to work to eat" is the most ridiculous
| gen Z meme going around lately. Like, technically yes, not
| eating would make you unhealthy and thus unable to
| contribute yourself, but we also don't want the opposite of
| people just sitting home all depressed about being
| oppressed and not utilizing their gifts while living off
| mysteriously-produced (paid for or labored over by whom?)
| gourmet sushi. How about another common meme in response?
| "We live in a society."
| kortex wrote:
| > Produce value for others, get paid
|
| So if a human is unable to produce value, they don't get
| (food/education/heathcare/<resource>)? That seems to be
| the implication. We in developed countries already have
| some amount of "value risk hedging" (I'm loathe to say
| "socialism" here), we just disagree endlessly how much is
| the optimal amount. But we've determined that wards of
| the state, universal education, and some amount of food
| support for the poor is the absolute bare minimum for a
| developed society.
|
| > People, NOT machines, are the ultimate judgers of what
| is valuable and the ultimate producers of value.
|
| Uhhh we already have software which sifts through resumes
| to allow/reject candidates, before it gets to any kind of
| human judge, so we are already gating value assessments.
| pmarreck wrote:
| > So if a human is unable to produce value, they don't
| get (food/education/heathcare/<resource>)?
|
| I would agree that some people are simply unable to help
| and need the help themselves and should get it. UBI or
| some other social safety net should be there for that.
| mhss wrote:
| You make it sound simple. What's the replacement? UBI is at
| least somewhat within grasp. Completely replacing
| capitalism is going to take a long time and it's more
| likely to happen as incremental improvements.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| I think there will be plenty of work for a while because
| manual labor - construction, healthcare (doctors, nurses),
| food preparation, tradespeople - will be hard to replace in
| the foreseeable future.
|
| I see UBI as a solution to inequality (real problem) not as a
| solution to lack of jobs (not a problem). AI will probably
| lead to reduction of inequality and therefore there will be
| less need for UBI.
|
| In theory, the "mental" workers who get replaced by AI could
| simply move to manual jobs and total production and average
| wages would go up. But they may not like it, at least I
| wouldn't.
| make3 wrote:
| AI will increase inequality, because most jobs will be
| automated, & most people will either not have jobs or have
| incredibly menial physical jobs where they are
| interchangeable
| callwhendone wrote:
| Manual labor has been my general thought but the progress
| Tesla is making on their robots makes me question that
| assumption. I imagine in the next decade, we're going to
| see large swaths of the population unable to do meaningful
| work that isn't already done by machines.
|
| We're looking down the pipe at a truly dystopian future.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >, the "mental" workers who get replaced by AI could simply
| move to manual jobs and total production and average wages
| would go up
|
| Why would manual job average wages go up? You're increasing
| the size of the labor pool.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| Total production would increase (AI will allow us to make
| more with less) and I'm expecting the capital / labor
| share to remain stable.
|
| An analogy:
|
| Imagine that half of the labor force makes cars, the
| other half creates software. The average person buys 1
| car and 1 software per year. There's a breakthrough, AI
| can now be used to create software almost for free. It
| can even make 2x more software per year. The programmers
| switch to making cars. So now the economy is producing 2
| cars and 2 softwares per worker per year! Salaries have
| now doubled thanks to technological progress.
|
| You could argue that this will increase inequality and
| all of the productivity gains will go to the top 1%. I
| don't think so.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >You could argue that this will increase inequality and
| all of the productivity gains will go to the top 1%.
|
| I don't have to argue.. others have done it for me
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/richest-one-percent-
| gained-t...
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/16/richest-1percent-amassed-
| alm...
|
| https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-
| ameri...
| JasserInicide wrote:
| UBI is just not happening any time soon in the US. To start,
| half of the country is already default against it. Precisely
| 0 people in Congress, the White House, or those in adjacent
| power roles (lobbyists and whatnot) are for it or have any
| idea what it is.
|
| Aside from rolling out the guillotine, I don't see UBI a
| possibility until the 2nd half of the 21st century. There's
| just too many forces and entities alive that don't want it
| tim333 wrote:
| I think the plan is first robots take our jobs, then UBI.
| If you gave people free money now we'd be suffering from a
| lack of workers due to general robot non existence. I'm
| guessing 2045 maybe?
| lcfcjs wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| tetris11 wrote:
| You summed up my financial and career worries very nicely
| lossolo wrote:
| Don't worry, you are not alone, there are hundreds of millions
| of us around the world, maybe even billions (all the jobs that
| could be replaced by AI in the next 10-20 years). We will just
| need to do what we always do, so vote for a systemic change or
| eat the rich.
| yankput wrote:
| call Sarah Connor
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| There are a few more details in the system card here:
| https://cdn.openai.com/papers/GPTV_System_Card.pdf
| SomethingNew2 wrote:
| There are a lot of comments attempting to rationalize the value
| add or differentiation of humans synthesizing information and
| communicating it to others vs an llm based ai doing something
| similar. The fact that it's so difficult to find a compelling
| difference is insightful in itself.
| ndm000 wrote:
| I think the compelling difference is truthfulness. There are
| certain people / organizations that I trust their synthesis of
| information. For LLMs, I can either use what they give me in
| low impact situations or I have to filter the output with what
| I know as true or can test.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| I hope they add more country accents like British or Australian,
| the American one can be (imho) a little grating after a while for
| non US English speakers
| boredemployee wrote:
| They could also improve their current features. I always need to
| regenerate answers.
| boredemployee wrote:
| [flagged]
| WalterBright wrote:
| I keep hoping to be able to give it a jpg of handwritten text and
| it'll give me back ASCII text.
| athyuttamre wrote:
| @dang, could we update the title to "ChatGPT can now see, hear,
| and speak"?
| lukeplato wrote:
| it's not rolled out yet
| laurels-marts wrote:
| I'm very curious about this feature:
|
| > analyze a complex graph for work-related data
|
| Does this mean that I can take a screenshot of e.g. Apple stock
| chart and it will be able to reason about it and provide insights
| and analysis?
|
| GPT-4 currently can display images but cannot reason or
| understand them at all. I think it's one thing to have some image
| recognition and be able to detect that the picture "contains a
| time-series chart that appears to be displaying apple stock" vs
| "apple stock appears to be 40% up YTD but 10% down from it's all
| time high from earlier in July. closing at $176 as of the last
| recorded date".
|
| I'm very curious how capable ChatGPT will be at actually
| reasoning about complex graphical data.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Look at this link of GPT-4 Vision analyzing charts(last image).
|
| https://imgur.com/a/iOYTmt0
| gdubs wrote:
| Check out their linked paper that goes into details around its
| current limitations and capabilities. In theory, it will be
| able to look at a financial chart and perform fairly
| sophisticated analysis on it. But they're careful to highlight
| that there are hallucinations still, and also cases where it
| misreads things like labels on medical images, or diagrams of
| chemical compounds, etc.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-25 23:01 UTC)