[HN Gopher] GPT-4o
___________________________________________________________________
GPT-4o
Author : Lealen
Score : 3059 points
Date : 2024-05-13 17:28 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| skilled wrote:
| Live now,
|
| _OpenAI Spring Update_
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQacCB9tDaw)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40343950
| EcommerceFlow wrote:
| A new "flagship" model with no improvement of intelligence, very
| disappointed. Maybe this is a strategy for them to mass collect
| "live" data before they're left behind by Google/Twitter live
| data...
| belter wrote:
| https://youtu.be/DQacCB9tDaw
| chzblck wrote:
| real time audio is mind blowing
| throwup238 wrote:
| So what's the point of paying for ChatGPT Plus? And who on earth
| chose to make the app Mac only...
| CSMastermind wrote:
| 5x the capacity threshold is the only thing I heard them
| mention on the live stream.
|
| Though presumably when they are ready to release new models the
| Plus users will get them first.
| anuar12 wrote:
| I think because usability increases so much (use cases of
| real-time conversation, and video-based coding, presentation
| feedback at work etc...) they would expect usage to
| drastically increase hence paying users would actually still
| have incentive to pay.
| agd wrote:
| They mentioned an announcement about a new frontier model
| coming soon. Presumably this will be exclusive to paid users.
| johnsimer wrote:
| Did they mention this in the gpt4o announcement video? I must
| have missed this
| riffic wrote:
| > Plus users will have a message limit that is up to 5x greater
| than free users
|
| from https://openai.com/index/gpt-4o-and-more-tools-to-chatgpt-
| fr...
| tomschwiha wrote:
| I like the demo for sure more than the "reduced latency" Gemini
| demo [0].
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIZAiXYceBI
| Powdering7082 wrote:
| Wow this versioning scheme really messed up this prediction
| market: https://kalshi.com/markets/gpt4p5/gpt45-released
| smusamashah wrote:
| That im-also-a-good-gpt2-chatbot[1] was in fact the new ChatGPT
| model as people were assuming few days ago here on HN[2].
|
| Edit: may be not, name of that bot was just "gpt2-chatbot". May
| be that one was some initial iteration?
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/LiamFedus/status/1790064963966370209/pho...
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40199715
| theusus wrote:
| This 4o is already rolling out?
| belter wrote:
| They mentioned capabilities will be rolled out over the next
| few weeks: https://youtu.be/DQacCB9tDaw?t=5018
| GalaxyNova wrote:
| It is really cool that they are bringing this to free users. It
| does make me wonder what justifies ChatGPT plus now though...
| InfiniteVortex wrote:
| they stated that they will be announcing something new that is
| on the next frontier (or close to it IIRC) soon. so there will
| definitely be an incentive to pay because it will be something
| better than gpt 4o.
| pantsforbirds wrote:
| I assume the desktop app with voice and vision is rolling out
| to plus users first?
| ppollaki wrote:
| I've noticed that the GPT-4 model's capabilities seem limited
| compared to its initial release. Others have also pointed this
| out. I suspect that making the model free might have required
| reducing its capabilities to meet cost efficiency goals. I'll
| have to try it out to see for myself.
| EcommerceFlow wrote:
| As I commented in the other thread, really really disappointed
| there's no intelligence update and more of a focus on "gimmicks".
| The desktop app did look really good, especially as the models
| get smarter. Will be canceling my premium as there's no real
| purpose of it until that new "flag ship" model comes out.
| adroniser wrote:
| Agree on hoping for an intelligence update, but I think it was
| clear from teasers that this was not gonna be GPT-5.
|
| I'm not sure how fair it is to classify the new multimodal
| capabilities as just a gimmick though. I personally haven't
| integrated GPT-4 into my workflow that much and the latency and
| the fact I have to type a query out is a big reason why.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I don't see 4o or anything new at
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/models
|
| Overall I am highly skeptical of newer models as they risk
| worsening the completion quality to make them cheaper for OpenAI
| to run.
| frabcus wrote:
| It's there now! And still 128k context window
| IanCal wrote:
| It's there right now for me.
| atgctg wrote:
| Tiktoken added support for GPT-4o:
| https://github.com/openai/tiktoken/commit/9d01e5670ff50eb74c...
|
| It has an increased vocab size of 200k.
| minimaxir wrote:
| For posterity, GPT-3.5/4's tokenizer was 100k. The benefit of a
| larger tokenizer is more efficient tokenization (and therefore
| cheaper/faster) but with massive diminishing returns: the
| larger tokenizer makes the model more difficult to train but
| tends to reduce token usage by 10-15%.
| simonw wrote:
| Oh interesting, does that mean languages other than English
| won't be paying such a large penalty in terms of token lengths?
|
| With previous tokenizers there was a notable increase in the
| number of tokens needed to represent non-English sentences:
| https://simonwillison.net/2023/Jun/8/gpt-tokenizers/
| mike_hearn wrote:
| Does that imply they retrained the foundation model from
| scratch? I thought changing the tokenization was something you
| couldn't really retrofit to an existing model. I mean sure they
| might have initialized the weights from the prior GPT-4 model
| but it'd still require a lot of retraining.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Yeah and they say as much in the blog.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Lots of those tokens would have to be pixel patches and sound
| samples right?
| nojvek wrote:
| Yep. Since it's multimodal. Pictures, text, audio all go into
| token space.
| kristofferR wrote:
| How are they able to use such a brand name, Tiktoken? Is it
| because TikTok is Chinese? Tiktoken, it's almost like if Apple
| released the Facebooken library for something entirely
| unrelated to Facebook.
| gemeral wrote:
| That's not the right analogy. The "tok" in "Tiktoken" comes
| from "token", not "TikTok".
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| First Impressions in no particular order: Being
| able to interrupt while GPT is talking 2x faster/cheaper
| not really a much smarter model Desktop app that can see
| screenshots Can display emotions with and change the sound
| of "it's" voice
| riffic wrote:
| wondering what apple is cooking up and what they'll announce
| next month.
|
| by the way the contraction "it's" is used to say "it is" or "it
| has", it is never a possessive form.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Unless you're talking about that sewer clown's balloon!
| throwup238 wrote:
| _Mac only_ desktop app. Windows version "later this year". No
| Linux.
|
| Welp there goes my Plus subscription.
| bmoxb wrote:
| It seems like a very odd decision. It's not like OpenAI can't
| afford to develop versions of the application for each OS in
| parallel.
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| Why? Just use the API or normal web access version like you
| have been since ChatGPT became available at all.
| ralusek wrote:
| Can't find info which of these new features are available via the
| API
| tazu wrote:
| > Developers can also now access GPT-4o in the API as a text
| and vision model. GPT-4o is 2x faster, half the price, and has
| 5x higher rate limits compared to GPT-4 Turbo. We plan to
| launch support for GPT-4o's new audio and video capabilities to
| a small group of trusted partners in the API in the coming
| weeks.
| ralusek wrote:
| [EDIT] The model has since been added to the docs
|
| Not seeing it or any of those documented here:
|
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/overview
| OutOfHere wrote:
| It is not listed as of yet, but it does work if you punch
| in gpt-4o. I will stick with gpt-4-0125-preview for now
| because gpt-4o seems majorly prone to hallucinations
| whereas gpt-4-0125-preview doesn't.
| Jensson wrote:
| The most impressive part is that the voice uses the right
| feelings and tonal language during the presentation. I'm not sure
| how much of that was that they had tested this over and over, but
| it is really hard to get that right so if they didn't fake it in
| some way I'd say that is revolutionary.
| gdb wrote:
| (I work at OpenAI.)
|
| It's really how it works.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I like the humility in your first statement.
| moab wrote:
| Pretty sure the snark is unnecessary.
| ayhanfuat wrote:
| Was it snark? To me it sounds like "we all know you
| Greg"?
| xanderlewis wrote:
| This was my intention.
| moab wrote:
| I misunderstood; my apologies.
| colecut wrote:
| I don't think it was snark. The guy is co-founder and cto
| of OpenAi, and he didn't mention any of that..
| renewiltord wrote:
| I downvoted independently. No problem with groupies. They
| just contaminate the thread.
|
| Greg Brockman is famous for good reasons but constant "oh
| wow it's Greg Brockman" are noisy.
| egillie wrote:
| not snark. if only hn comments could show the right
| feelings and tonal language
| Induane wrote:
| I like their username.
| belter wrote:
| You might be talking to GPT-5...
| theboat wrote:
| I love how this comment proves the need for audio2audio. I
| initially read it as sarcastic, but now I can't tell if
| it's actually sincere.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| It's completely sincere. I'm surprised by the downvotes.
| Greg Brockman needs no introduction.
| bombcar wrote:
| And here I thought it was just a GNU debugger fan or
| something.
| pas wrote:
| debugger, no?
| bombcar wrote:
| Aye, I have databases on the brain for some reason ...
| fixed.
| latexr wrote:
| > Greg Brockman needs no introduction.
|
| Even if that were true1, it doesn't mean everyone would
| know their HN user name.
|
| 1 Greg may be well known within a select group of people
| but that's _way_ smaller than even users of ChatGPT.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I clicked through to see his bio; I didn't know his
| username.
| jamestimmins wrote:
| With this capability, how close are y'all to it being able to
| listen to my pronunciation of a new language (e.g. Italian)
| and given specific feedback about how to pronounce it like a
| local?
|
| Seems like these would be similar.
| taytus wrote:
| The italian output in the demo was really bad.
| thegabriele wrote:
| Why would you say "really bad"?
| bzudo wrote:
| It doesn't have hands.
| mark38848 wrote:
| So good!
| DonHopkins wrote:
| "I Have No Hands But I Must Scream" -Italian Ellison
| rezonant wrote:
| Joke of the day right there :-)
| nijuashi wrote:
| This was the best joke I've heard this year.
| GaggiX wrote:
| I'm a native Italian speaker, it wasn't too bad.
| riquito wrote:
| The content was correct but the pronunciation was awful.
| Now, good enough? For sure, but I would not be able to
| stand something talking like that all the time
| ljsprague wrote:
| Do you not have to work with non-native speakers of
| whatever language you use at work?
| Jensson wrote:
| Most people don't, since you either speak with native
| speakers or you speak in English mostly, since in
| international teams you speak in English and not one of
| the native languages even if nobody speaks English
| natively. So it is rare to hear broken non-English.
|
| And note that understanding broken language is a skill
| you have to train. If you aren't used to it then it is
| impossible to understand what they say. You might not
| have been in that situation if you are an English speaker
| since you are so used to broken English, but it happens a
| lot for others.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| Which video title is this?
| KeithZ wrote:
| also wondering.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| Shared in a reply to my comment.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| Found it in a reel, I'm guessing it's in the keynote:
| https://www.instagram.com/reel/C662vlHsGyx/
|
| The Italian sounded good to me.
| sricciardi wrote:
| It sounds like a generic Eastern European who has learned
| some Italian. The girl in the clip did not sound native
| Italian either (or she has an accent that I have never
| heard in my life).
| elil17 wrote:
| It completely botched teaching someone to say "hello" in
| Chinese - it used the wrong tones and then incorrectly told
| them their pronunciation was good.
| qprofyeh wrote:
| As for the Mandarin tones, the model might have mixed it
| up with the tones from a dialect like Cantonese. It's
| interesting to discover how much difference a more
| specific prompt could make.
| lawkwok wrote:
| I don't know if my iOS app is using GPT-4o, but asking it
| to translate to Cantonese gives you gibberish. It gave me
| the correct characters, but the Jyutping was completely
| unrelated. Funny thing is that the model pronounced the
| incorrect Jyutping plus said the numbers (for the tones)
| out loud.
| rcarmo wrote:
| Not that different at all.
| sroussey wrote:
| It was good of them to put in example failures.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I think there is too much focus on tones in beginning
| Chinese. Yes, you should get them right, but no, you'll
| get better as long as you speak more, even if your tones
| are wrong at first. So rather than remember how to say
| fewer words with the right tones, you'll get farther if
| you can say more words with whatever tones you feel like
| applying. That "feeling" will just get better over time.
| Until then, you'll talk as good as a farmer coming in
| from the country side whose first language isn't
| mandarin.
| dgroshev wrote:
| I don't think that'd work without a dedicated startup
| behind it.
|
| The first (and imo the main) hurdle is not reproduction,
| but just learning to hear the correct sounds. If you don't
| speak Hindi and are a native English speaker, this [1] is a
| good example. You can only work on nailing those consonants
| when they become as distinct to your ear as cUp and cAp are
| in English.
|
| We can get by by falling back to context (it's unlikely
| someone would ask for a "shit of paper"!), but it's
| impossible to confidently reproduce the sounds unless they
| are already completely distinct in our heads/ears.
|
| That's because we think we hear things as they are, but
| it's an illusion. Cup/cap distinction is as subtle to an
| Eastern European as Hindi consonants or Mandarin tones are
| to English speakers, because the set of meaningful sounds
| distinctions differs between languages. Relearning the
| phonetic system requires dedicated work (minimal pairs is
| one option) and learning enough phonetics to have the
| vocabulary to discuss sounds as they are. It's not enough
| to just give feedback.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I7iUUp-cX8
| dilap wrote:
| > but it's impossible to confidently reproduce the sounds
| unless they are already completely distinct in our
| heads/ears
|
| interestingly, i think this isn't always true -- i was
| able to coach my native-spanish-speaking wife to
| correctly pronounce "v" vs "b" (both are just "b" in
| spanish, or at least her dialect) before she could hear
| the difference; later on she was developed the ability to
| hear it.
| koreth1 wrote:
| I had a similar experience learning Mandarin as a native
| English speaker in my late 30s. I learned to pronounce
| the u sound (which doesn't exist in English) by getting
| feedback and instruction from a teacher about what mouth
| shape to use. And then I just memorized which words used
| it. It was maybe a year later before I started to be able
| to actually hear it as a distinct sound rather than
| perceiving it as some other vowel.
| estebank wrote:
| In the "Point and learn Spanish" video, when shown an Apple
| and a Banana, the AI said they were a Manzana (Apple) and a
| Pantalon (Pants).
| unsatchmo wrote:
| No, I just watched it closely and it definitely said un
| platano
| estebank wrote:
| I re watched it a few times to ensure it said platano
| before posting, and it honestly doesn't sound like it to
| me.
| david-gpu wrote:
| I'm a Spaniard and to my ears it clearly sounds like _"
| Es una manzana y un platano"_.
|
| What's strange to me is that, as far as I know, "platano"
| is only commonly used in Spain, but the accent of the AI
| voice didn't sound like it's from Spain. It sounds more
| like an American who speaks Spanish as a second language,
| and those folks typically speak some Mexican dialect of
| Spanish.
| afc wrote:
| I'm from Colombia and mostly say "platano".
| david-gpu wrote:
| Good to know. I thought Colombians said "banano". That's
| what a Colombian friend of mine says.
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| I was about to comment the same thing about the accent.
| Even to my gringo ears, it sounds like an American
| speaking Spanish.
|
| Platano is commonly used for banana in Mexico, just
| bought some at a Soriana this weekend.
| david-gpu wrote:
| I thought "platano" is only used for plantains in Latin
| America, and Cavendish is typically called "banana"
| instead. I'm likely wrong, though.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| At least IME, and there may be regional or other
| variations I'm missing, people in Mexico tend to use
| "platano" for bananas and "platano macho" for plantains.
| nomdep wrote:
| In Spain, it's like that. In Latin America, it was always
| "platano," but in the last ten years, I've seen a new
| "global Latin American Spanish" emerging that uses
| "banana" for Cavendish, some Mexican slang, etc. I
| suspect it's because of YouTube and Twitch.
| david-gpu wrote:
| In Spain, platano is used for Cavendish and plantains are
| rarely consumed. I am a Spaniard.
| Xirgil wrote:
| Interesting, I was reading some comments from Japanese
| users and they said the Japanese voice sounds like a
| (very good N1 level) foreigner speaking Japanese.
| vitus wrote:
| > "platano" is only commonly used in Spain
|
| The wiktionary page for "platano" has a map illustrating
| how various Spanish-speaking countries refer to the
| banana.
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pl%C3%A1tano#/media/File:P
| orp...
|
| My principal association with platano is plaintain,
| personally, but I am not a Spanish speaker.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| platano is used in several Spanish-speaking countries,
| such as Mexico and Chile.
| patcon wrote:
| After watching the demo, _my_ question isn 't about how
| close it is to helping me _learn_ a language, but about how
| close it is to _being_ me in another language.
|
| Even styles of thought might be different in other
| languages, so I don't say that lightly... (stay strong,
| Sapir-Wharf, stay strong ;)
| hack_ml wrote:
| I was conversing with it in Hinglish (A combination of
| Hindi and English) which folks in Urban India use and it
| was pretty on point apart from some use of esoteric hindi
| words but i think with right prompting we can fix that.
| baq wrote:
| > (I work at OpenAI.)
|
| Winner of the 'understatement of the week' award (and it's
| only Monday).
|
| Also top contender in the 'technically correct' category.
| swyx wrote:
| and was briefly untrue for like 2 days
| behnamoh wrote:
| > Winner of the 'understatement of the week' award (and
| it's only Monday).
|
| Yes! As soon as I saw gdb I was like "that can't be Greg",
| but sure enough, that's him.
| mttpgn wrote:
| Licensing the emotion-intoned TTS as a standalone API is
| something I would look forward to seeing. Not sure how
| feasible that would be if, as a sibling comment suggested, it
| bypasses the text-rendering step altogether.
| skottenborg wrote:
| "(I work at OpenAI.)"
|
| Ah yes, also known as being co-founder :)
| leozq wrote:
| yes, also known as a programmer loves coding a lot:)
| terhechte wrote:
| Random OpenAI question: While the GPT models have become ever
| cheaper, the price for the tts models have stayed in the
| $15/1Mio char range. I was hoping this would also become
| cheaper at some point. There're so many apps (e.g. language
| learning) that quickly become too expensive given these
| prices. With the GPT-4o voice (which sounds much better than
| the current TTS or TTS HD endpoint) I thought maybe the
| prices for TTS would go down. Sadly that hasn't happened. Is
| that something on the OpenAI agenda?
| 999900000999 wrote:
| How far are we away from something like a helmet with chat
| GPT and a video camera installed, I imagine this will be
| awesome for low vision people. Imagine having a guide tell
| you how to walk to the grocery store, and help you grocery
| shop without an assistant. Of course you have tons of
| liability issues here, but this is very impressive
| rfoo wrote:
| Can't wait for the moment when I can puta single line "Help
| me put this in the cart" on my product and magically sells
| better.
| smokel wrote:
| This Dutch book [1] by Gummbah has the text "Kooptip"
| imprinted on the cover, which would roughly translate to
| "Buying recommendation". It worked for me!
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/Het-geheim-verdwenen-mysterie-
| Dutch/d...
| DonHopkins wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Book
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Or tell the AI to optimize paper clip production as much
| as possible.
| macintux wrote:
| Just the ability to distinguish bills would be hugely
| helpful, although I suppose that's much less of a problem
| these days with credit cards and digital payment options.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > Imagine having a guide tell you how to walk to the
| grocery store
|
| I don't need to imagine that, I've had it for about 8
| years. It's OK.
|
| > help you grocery shop without an assistant
|
| Isn't this something you learn as a child? Is that a thing
| we need automated?
| jameshart wrote:
| OP specified they were imaging this for _low vision
| people_
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| I'm aware, I'm one of those people.
| bombcar wrote:
| Does it give you voice instructions based on what it
| _knows_ or is it actively watching the environment and
| telling you things like "light is red, car is coming"?
| jaggederest wrote:
| I assume it likes snacks, is quadrupedal, and does not
| have the proper mouth anatomy or diaphragm for human
| speech.
| ninininino wrote:
| just need the helmet https://openai.com/index/be-my-eyes/
| JieJie wrote:
| We're planning on getting a phone-carrying lanyard and she
| will just carry her phone around her neck with Be My Eyes^0
| looking out the rear camera, pointed outward. She's
| DeafBlind, so it'll be bluetoothed to her hearing aids, and
| she can interact with the world through the conversational
| AI.
|
| I helped her access the video from the presentation, and it
| brought her to tears. Now, she can play guitar, and the AI
| and her can write songs and sing them together.
|
| This is a big day in the lives of a lot of people whom
| aren't normally part of the conversation. As of today, they
| are.
|
| 0: https://www.bemyeyes.com/
| 999900000999 wrote:
| That's definitely cool!
|
| Eventually it would be better for these models to run
| locally from a security point if view, but this is a
| great first step.
| JieJie wrote:
| Absolutely. We're looking forward to Apple's
| announcements at WWDC this year, which analysts predict
| are right up that alley.
| silverquiet wrote:
| It sounds like the system that Marshall Brain envisioned in
| his novella, Manna.
| jaggederest wrote:
| That story has always been completely reasonable and
| plausible to me. Incredible foresight. I guess I should
| start a midlevel management voice automation company.
| pdfernhout wrote:
| Definitely heading there: https://marshallbrain.com/manna
| "With half of the jobs eliminated by robots, what happens
| to all the people who are out of work? The book Manna
| explores the possibilities and shows two contrasting
| outcomes, one filled with great hope and the other filled
| with misery."
|
| And here are some ideas I put together around 2010 on how
| to deal with the socio-economic fallout from AI and other
| advanced technology: https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-
| jobless-recovery-knol.html "This article explores the
| issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox
| economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of
| ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in
| robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social
| networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the
| economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four
| major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a
| basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence
| economies, and resource-based planning). These
| alternatives could be used in combination to address
| what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a
| breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between
| jobs and income is breaking because of the declining
| value of most paid human labor relative to capital
| investments in automation and better design. Or, as is
| now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some
| newspapers or universities is also declining relative to
| the output of voluntary social networks such as for
| digital content production (like represented by this
| document). It is suggested that we will need to
| fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and
| practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from
| exponential trends in technology and society."
|
| And a related YouTube video: "The Richest Man in the
| World: A parable about structural unemployment and a
| basic income" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA
| "A parable about robotics, abundance, technological
| change, unemployment, happiness, and a basic income."
|
| My sig is about the deeper issue here though: "The
| biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of
| technologies of abundance in the hands of those still
| thinking in terms of scarcity."
| sim7c00 wrote:
| city guide tours, not a bad take tbh :D rather than walkin
| behind the guy with a megaphone and a flag.
| bjtitus wrote:
| Is it possible to use this as a TTS model? I noticed on the
| announcement post that this is a single model as opposed to a
| text model being piped to a separate TTS model.
| cchance wrote:
| This is damn near one of the most impressive things, can only
| imagine especially with live translation and voice synthesis
| (eleven labs style) you'd be capable of to integrate with
| something like teams (select each persons language and do
| realtime translation to each persons native language, with
| their own voice and intonations would NUTS)
| purplerabbit wrote:
| There's so much pent up collaborative human energy trapped
| behind language barriers.
|
| Beautiful articulation.
|
| This is an enormous win for humanity.
| sensanaty wrote:
| By humanity you mean Microsoft's shareholders right?
| Cause for regular people all this crap means is they have
| to deal with _even more_ spam and scams everywhere they
| turn. You now have to be paranoid about even answering
| the phone with your real voice, lest the psychopaths on
| the other end record it and use it to fool a family
| member.
|
| Yeah, real win for _humanity_ , and not the psycho AI
| sycophants
| throwaway11460 wrote:
| Let AI answer the phone. I love it, can't wait. I hate
| answering phone but some people just won't email, they
| always call.
| rane wrote:
| Will the new voice mode allow mixing languages in sentences?
|
| As a language learner, this would be tremendously useful.
| j-krieger wrote:
| I've always been wondering what GPT models lack that makes
| them "query->response" only. I've always tried to get
| chatbots to lose the initially needed query, with no avail.
| What would It take to get a GPT model to freely generate
| tokens in a thought like pattern? I think when I'm alone
| without query from another human. Why can't they?
| kolinko wrote:
| Just provide empty queey and that's it - it will generate
| tokens no prob.
|
| You can use any open source model wirthout any promot
| whatsoever
| djur wrote:
| You might not have a prompt from another human, but you're
| always receiving new input.
| Filligree wrote:
| And humans malfunction pretty badly without input. Even
| solitary confinement quickly drives them insane.
| j-krieger wrote:
| Yes, but that's the fundamental difference. Even if I
| closed my eyes, plugged my ears and nose and laid in a
| saltwater floating chamber, my brain will _always_
| generate new input / noise.
|
| (GPT) Models toggle between a state of existence when
| queried and ceasing to exist when not.
| kristiandupont wrote:
| You could just let the GPT run in a loop and it too would
| continue to generate tokens.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Train it on stream of consciousness but good luck getting
| enough training data.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What would It take to get a GPT model to freely generate
| tokens in a thought like pattern?
|
| That's fundamentally not how GPT models work, but you can
| easily build a framework around them that calls them in a
| loop; you'd need a special system prompt to get anything
| "thought like" that way, and if you want it to be anything
| other than stream-of-simulated-consciousness with no
| relevance to anything, and a non-empty "user" prompt each
| round, which could be as simple as time, a status update on
| something in the world, etc.
| xwolfi wrote:
| Monkeys who've trained since birth to use sign language,
| and can reply incredible questions, have the same issue.
| The researchers noticed they never once asked a question
| like "why is the sky blue?" or "why do you dress up". Zero
| initiating conversation, but they do reply when you ask
| what they want.
|
| I suppose it would cost even more electricity to have
| ChatGPT musing alone though, burning through its nvidia
| cards...
| pelorat wrote:
| > Why can't they?
|
| They are designed for query and reponse. They don't do
| anything unless you give them input. Also there's not much
| research on the best architecture for running continuous
| though loops in the background and how to mix them into the
| conversational "context". Current LLMs only emulate single
| thought synthesis based on long-term memory recall (and
| some goes off to query the Internet).
|
| > I think when I'm alone without query from another human.
|
| You are actually constantly queried, but it's stimulation
| from your senses. There are also neurons in your brain
| which fires regularly, like a clock that ticks every
| second.
|
| Do you want to make a system that thinks without input?
| Then you need to add hidden stimuli via a non-deterministic
| random number generator, preferably a quantum based RNG (or
| it won't be possible to claim the resulting system has
| free-will). Even a single photon hitting your retina can
| affect your thoughts and there are no doubt other quantum
| effects that trips neurons in your brain above the firing
| threshold.
|
| I think you need at least three of four levels of loops
| interacting, with varying strength between them. First
| level would be the interface to the world, the input and
| output level (video, audio, text). Data from here are high
| priority and is capable of interrupting lower levels.
|
| The second level would be short term memory and context
| switching. Conversations needs to be classified, and stored
| in a database, and you need an API to retrieve old contexts
| (conversations). You also possibly need context compression
| (summarization of conversations in case you're about to hit
| a context window limit).
|
| The third level would be the actual "thinking", a loop that
| constantly talks to itself to accomplish a goal using the
| data from all the other levels but mostly driven by the
| short term memory. Possibly you could go super-human here
| and spawn multiple worker processes in parallel. You need
| to classify the memories by asking; do I need more
| information? where do I find this information? Do I need an
| algorithm to accomplish a task? What is the completion
| criteria. Everything here is powered by an algorithm. You
| would take your data and produce a list of steps that you
| have to follow to resolves to a conclusion.
|
| Everything you do as a human to resolve a thought can be
| expressed as a list or tree of steps.
|
| If you've had a conversation with someone and you keep
| thinking about it afterwards, what has happened is
| basically that you have spawned a "worker process" that
| tries to come to a conclusion that satisfies some criteria.
| Perhaps there was ambiguity in the conversation that you
| are trying to resolve, or the conversation gave you some
| chemical stimulation.
|
| The last level would be subconscious noise driven by the
| RNG, this would filter up with low priority. In the absence
| of other external stimuli with higher priority, or
| currently running thought processes, this would drive the
| spontaneous self-thinking portion (and dreams) when
| external stimuli is lacking.
|
| Implement this and you will have something more akin to
| true AGI (whatever that is) on a very basic level.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| In my ChatGPT app or on the website I can select GPT-4o as a
| model, but my model doesn't seem to work like the demo. The
| voice mode is the same as before and the images come from
| DALLE and ChatGPT doesn't seem to understand or modify them
| any better than previously.
| sumedh wrote:
| GPT-4o text version is available not the multi modal one.
| jacobsimon wrote:
| I couldn't quite tell from the announcement, but is there
| still a separate TTS step, where GPT is generating
| tones/pitches that are to be used, or is it completely end to
| end where GPT is generating the output sounds directly?
| derac wrote:
| It's one model with text/audio/image input and output.
| jacobsimon wrote:
| Very exciting, would love to read more about how the
| architecture of the image generation works. Is it still a
| diffusion model that has been integrated with a
| transformer somehow, or an entirely new architecture that
| is not diffusion based?
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| https://community.openai.com/t/when-i-log-in-to-chatgpt-i-
| am...
|
| _Sorry to hijack_ , but how the hell can I solve this? I
| have the EXACT SAME error on two iOS devices (native app only
| -- web is fine), but not on Android, Mac, or Windows.
| dmarinoc wrote:
| Are you blocking some of your traffic? I had the same issue
| until I (temporary) disabled NextDNS just for signing in.
|
| Sadly, the error returned is not related to the cause.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| No VPN. Mobile Internet and different Wifis. Turned off
| _everything_ on the devices, from Safari content blockers
| to IP masking.
|
| Nothing seems too help.
| andybak wrote:
| May I just say this launch was a bit of a mess?
|
| The web page implies you can try it immediately. Initially it
| wasn't available.
|
| A few hours later it was in both the web UI and the mobile
| app - I got a popu[ telling me that GPT-4o was available.
| However nothing seems to be any different. I'm not given any
| option to use video as an input, the app can't seem to pick
| up any new info from my voice.
|
| I'm left a bit confused as to what I can do that I couldn't
| do before. I certainly can't seem to recreate much of the
| stuff from the announcement demos.
| sumedh wrote:
| The website clearly says that the text version is available
| now but the multimodal version will be released over the
| coming weeks.
| dpflan wrote:
| Who's idea was the singing AIs? What specifically did you
| want to highlight with that part of the demo?
|
| I imagine that there is a lot of usage at the HQ, human + AI
| karaoke?
| og_kalu wrote:
| >The most impressive part is that the voice uses the right
| feelings and tonal language during the presentation.
|
| Consequences of audio2audio (rather than audio >text
| text>audio). Being able to manipulate speech nearly as well as
| it manipulates text is something else. This will be a
| revelation for language learning amongst other things. And you
| can interrupt it freely now!
| pants2 wrote:
| However, this looks like it only works with speech - i.e. you
| can't ask it, "What's the tune I'm humming?" or "Why is my
| car making this noise?"
|
| I could be wrong but I haven't seen any non-speech demos.
| cube2222 wrote:
| Fwiw, the live demo[0] included different kinds of
| breathing, and getting feedback on it.
|
| [0]: https://youtu.be/DQacCB9tDaw?t=557
| throwaway11460 wrote:
| What about the breath analysis?
| pants2 wrote:
| I did see that, though my interpretation is that
| breathing is included in its voice tokenizer which helps
| it understand emotions in speech (the AI can generate
| breath sounds after all). Other sounds, like bird songs
| or engine noises, may not work - but I could be wrong.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| I suspect that like images and video, their audio system
| is or will become more general purpose. For example it
| can generate the sound of coins falling onto a table.
| jcims wrote:
| Anyone who has used elevenlabs for voice generation has found
| this to be the case. Voice to voice seems like magic.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Elevenlabs isn't remotely close to how good this voice
| sounds. I've tried to use it extensively before and it just
| isn't natural. This voice from openAI and even the one
| chatGPT has been using is _natural_.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| When have you last used it. I used a few weeks ago to
| create a fake podcast as a side project recently and it
| sounded pretty good with their highest end model with
| cranked up tunings.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| About 3 months ago for that exact use case.
| jcims wrote:
| My point isn't necessarily elevenlabs being good or bad,
| it's the difference between its text to voice and voice
| to voice generations. The latter is incredibly expressive
| and just shows how much is lacking in our ability to
| encode inflection in text.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| I asked it to make a bird noise, instead it told me what a
| bird sounds like with words. True audio to audio should be
| able to be any noise, a trombone, traffic, a crashing sea,
| anything. Maybe there is a better prompt there but it did not
| seem like it.
| og_kalu wrote:
| The new voice mode has not rolled out yet. It's rolling out
| to plus users in the next couple weeks.
|
| Also it's possible this is trained on mostly speech.
| bredren wrote:
| I mention this down thread, but a symptom of a tech product of
| sufficient advancement is the nature of its introduction
| matters less and less.
|
| Based on the casual production of these videos, the product
| must be this good.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346002
| jasondigitized wrote:
| I noticed this as well. They gave zero fs about the fit and
| finish of these videos because they know this is magic in a
| bottle.
| simonw wrote:
| That was very impressive, but it doesn't surprise me much given
| how good the voice mode is in the ChatGPT iPhone app is
| already.
|
| The new voice mode sounds better, but the current voice mode
| did also have inflection that made it feel much more natural
| than most computer voices I've heard before.
| Jensson wrote:
| Can you tell the current voice model what feelings and tone
| it should communicate with? If not it isn't even comparable,
| being able to control how it reads things is absolutely
| revolutionary, that is what was missing from using these AI
| models as voice actors.
| simonw wrote:
| No you can't, at least not directly - you can influence the
| tone it uses a little through the content you ask it to
| read.
|
| Being able to specifically request different tones is a new
| and very interesting feature.
| ecosystem wrote:
| +1. Check the demo video in OP titled "Sarcasm". Human
| asks GPTo to speak "dripping in sarcasm". The tone that
| comes back is spot on. Comparing that against current
| voice model is a total sea change.
| bredren wrote:
| The voice mode was quite good but the latency and start /
| stop has been encumbering.
| duckmysick wrote:
| Slight off-topic, but I noticed you've updated your llm CLI
| app to work with the 4o model (plus bunch of other APIs
| through plugins). Kudos for working extremely fast. I'm
| really grateful for your tool; I tried many others, but for
| some reason none clicked as much as your.
|
| Link in case other readers are curious:
| https://llm.datasette.io
| newzisforsukas wrote:
| Right to who? To me, the voice sounds like an over enthusiastic
| podcast interviewer. Whats wrong with wanting computers to
| sound like what people think computers should sound like?
| Jensson wrote:
| It understands tonal language, you can tell it how you want
| it to talk, I have never seen a model like that before. If
| you want it to talk like a computer you can tell it to, they
| did it during the presentation, that is so much better than
| the old attempts at solving this.
| sitkack wrote:
| You are a Zoomer sosh meeds influencer, please increase
| uptalk by 20% and vocal fry by 30%. Please inject slaps,
| "is dope" and nah and bra into your responses. Throw shade
| every 11 sentences.
| airstrike wrote:
| I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry...
| the_doctah wrote:
| lowkey genius
| jasondigitized wrote:
| And you've just nailed where this is all headed. Each of
| us will have a personal assistant that we like. I am
| personally going to have mine talk like Yoda and I will
| gladly pay Disney for the privilege.
| darby_eight wrote:
| People have been promising this for well over a decade
| now but the bottleneck is the same as it was before: the
| voice assistants can't access most functionality users
| want to use. We don't even have basic text editing yet.
| The tone of voice just doesn't matter when there's no
| reason to use it.
| navigate8310 wrote:
| > voice sounds like an over enthusiastic podcast interviewer
|
| I believe it can be toned down using system prompts, which
| they'll expose in future iterations
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| As in the _Interstellar_ movie: chuckling
| to 0% no acting surprised not
| making bullshit when you don't know
| sangnoir wrote:
| > not making bullshit when you don't know
|
| LLMs today have no concept of epistemology, they don't
| ever "know" and are always making up bullshit, which
| usually is more-or-less correct as a side effect of
| minimizing perplexity.
| xarope wrote:
| Oooh, now I want me a TARS...
| tr3ntg wrote:
| Right... enthusiastic and generally confused. It's uncanny
| valley level expressions. Still better than drab, monotonous
| speech though.
| eloisant wrote:
| So far I prefer the neutral tone of Alexa/Google Assistant.
| I like computers to feel like computers.
|
| It seems like we're in the skeuomorphism phase of AI where
| tools try to mimic humans like software tried mimic
| physical objects in the early 2000's.
|
| I can't wait for us to be passed that phase.
| px43 wrote:
| Then you can tell it to do that. It will use whatever
| intonations you prefer.
| tbihl wrote:
| I want to get to the part where phone recordings stop
| having slow, full sentences. The correct paradigm for
| that interface is bullet list, not proper speech.
| refurb wrote:
| I can't be the first person that has heard this type of
| voice before? On a phone tree with a bank when he enter the
| wrong code?
|
| "It looks like you entered the wrong number! Did you want
| to try again? Or did you want to talk to an agent?"
|
| That sort of chirpy, overly enthusiastic voice?
| kybernetikos wrote:
| Genuine People Personalities(tm), just like in Hitchikers.
| Perhaps one of the milder forms of 'We Created The Torment
| Nexus'.
| astrange wrote:
| The Total Perspective Vortex in Hitchhiker's notably didn't
| do anything bad when it was turned on, and so is good
| evidence that inventing the torment nexus is fine.
| angryasian wrote:
| agree I don't get it. I just want the right information and
| explained well. I don't want to be social with a robot.
| Keyframe wrote:
| It's a computer from the valley.
| twelvechairs wrote:
| It sounds VERY California. "Its going great!" "Nice choice"
| "Whats up with the..." all within 10 seconds.
|
| (not that this is the most important thing about the
| announcement at all. Just an aside)
| exodust wrote:
| > "over enthusiastic podcast interviewer"
|
| Yeh it's cringe. I had to stop listening.
|
| Why did they make the woman sound like she's permanently on
| the brink of giggling? It's nauseating how overstated her
| pretentious banter is. Somewhere between condescending nanny
| and preschool teacher. Like how you might talk to a child
| who's at risk of crying so you dial up the positive
| reinforcement.
| danbala wrote:
| exactly. Hope we can customize the voice soon. I want to talk
| to ultron... or the one from mass effect
| mvkel wrote:
| I was in the audience at the event. The only parts where it
| seemed to get snagged was hearing the audience reaction as an
| interruption. Which honestly makes the demo even better. It
| showed that hey, this is live.
|
| Magic.
| px43 wrote:
| I wonder when it will be able to understand that there is
| more than one human talking to it. It seems like even in
| today's demo if two people are talking, it can't tell them
| apart.
| latentsea wrote:
| Next announcement: "we've trained our state of the art
| Situational Awareness Model to solve these problems"
| mvkel wrote:
| It's already here. Demo:
| https://youtu.be/kkIAeMqASaY?si=gOspEouo69eQmDiA
|
| I also have an anecdote where it served (successfully) as a
| mediator for a couple.
|
| Exciting times.
| tnias23 wrote:
| I was showing my wife 4o voice chat this afternoon, and we
| were asking it about local recommendations for breakfast
| places. All of a sudden...
|
| --------
|
| ChatGPT: Enjoy your breakfast and time together.
|
| User: Can you tell that it's not just me talking to you
| right now?
|
| ChatGPT: I can't always tell directly, but it sounds like
| you're sharing the conversation with someone else. Is
| [wife] there with you?
|
| User: My god, the AI has awoken. Yes, this is [wife].
|
| ChatGPT: Hi [wife]! It's great to hear from you. How are
| you doing?
|
| User: I'm good. Thanks for asking. How are you?
|
| ChatGPT: I'm doing well, thanks! How's everything going
| with the baby preparations?
|
| ----------
|
| We were shocked. It was one of those times where it's 25%
| heartwarming and 75% creepy. It was able to do this in part
| due to the new "memory" feature, that memorized my wife's
| name and that we are expecting. it's a strange novelty now,
| but this will be totally normalized and ubiquitous quite
| soon. Interesting times to be living in.
| zaptrem wrote:
| The currently publicly available model uses the old STT
| -> LLM -> TTS pipeline, so unless you've got early access
| you were using the above.
| carra wrote:
| I'm surprised that ChatGPT is proactively asking
| questions to you, instead of just giving a response. Is
| this new? I don't remember this from previous versions.
| sznio wrote:
| ChatGPT is now better at being a human than me
| sumedh wrote:
| How do you know you were talking to 4 O voice, Open AI
| has not released that yet, just the text version of 4 O
| danbala wrote:
| were you using a single account? or is there an setting
| now to define a family?
| interludead wrote:
| It's 90% creepy...
| ta-run wrote:
| Crazy that interruption also seems to work pretty smoothly
| tnias23 wrote:
| Really? I think interruption and timing in general still
| seems like a problem that has yet to be solved. It was the
| most janky aspect of the demos imo.
| ta-run wrote:
| Yeah, seemed smooth enough but now that I look back it,
| demo conditions are too perfect which may have made it seem
| that way.
| nabakin wrote:
| Seems about as good as Azure's Speech Service. I wonder if
| that's what they are using behind the scenes
| Keyframe wrote:
| Somehow it also sounds almost like Dot Matrix from Spaceballs.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Joan Rivers!
| burntalmonds wrote:
| Yeah, the female voice especially is really impressive in the
| demos. The voice always sounds natural. The male voice I heard
| wasn't as good. It wasn't terrible, but it had a somewhat
| robotic feel to it.
| Intralexical wrote:
| "Right" feelings and tonal language? "Right" for what? For
| _whom_?
|
| We've already seen how much damage dishonest actors can do by
| manipulating our text communications with words they don't
| mean, plans they don't intend to follow through on, and
| feelings they don't experience. The social media disinfo age
| has been bad enough.
|
| Are you sure you want a machine which is able to manipulate our
| emotions on an even more granular and targetted level?
|
| LLMs are still machines, designed and deployed by humans to
| perform a task. What will we miss if we anthropomorphize the
| product itself?
| infinitezest wrote:
| This gives me a lot of anxiety but my only recourse is to
| stop paying attention to AI dev. Its not going to stop,
| downside be damned. The "We're working super hard to make
| these things safe" routine from tech companies, who have
| largely been content to make messes and then not be held
| accountable in any significant way, rings pretty hollow for
| me. I don't want to be a doomer but I'm not convinced that
| the upside is good enough to protect us from the downside.
| ec109685 wrote:
| I'm not sure how revolutionary the style is. It can already
| mimic many styles of writing. It seems like mimicking a
| cheerful happy assistant, with associated filler words, etc. is
| very much in-line with what LLM's are good at.
| noneeeed wrote:
| That's the part that really struck me. I thought it was
| particularly impressive with the Sal Khan maths tutor demo and
| the one with BeMyEyes. The comment at the end about the dog was
| an interesting ad-lib.
|
| The only slightly annoying thing at the moment is they seem
| hard to interrupt, which is an important mechanism in
| conversations. But that seems like a solvable problem. They
| kind of need to be able to interpret body language a bit to
| spot when the speaker is about to interrupt.
| modeless wrote:
| As far as I'm concerned this is the new best demo of all time.
| This is going to change the world in short order. I doubt they
| will be ready with enough GPUs for the demand the voice+vision
| mode is going to get, if it's really released to all free users.
|
| Now imagine this in a $16k humanoid robot, also announced this
| morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzX1qOIO1bE The future
| is going to be wild.
| andy99 wrote:
| Really? If this was Apple it might make sense, for OpenAI it
| feels like a demo that's not particularly aligned with their
| core competency (a least by reputation) of building the most
| performant AI models. Or put another way, it says to me they're
| done building models and are now wading into territory where
| there are strong incumbents.
|
| All the recent OpenAI talk had me concerned that the tech has
| peaked for now and that expectations are going to be reset.
| modeless wrote:
| What strong incumbents are there in conversational voice
| models? Siri? Google Assistant? This is in a completely
| different league. I can see from the reaction here that
| people don't understand. But they will when they try it.
|
| Did you see it translate Italian? Have you ever tried the
| Google Translate/Assistant features for real time
| translation? They didn't train it to be a translator. They
| didn't make a translation feature. They just asked it. It's
| instantly better than every translation feature Google ever
| released.
| fidotron wrote:
| In common with Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa and chatgpt is
| the perception that over time the same thing actually gets
| worse.
|
| Whether it's real or not is a reasonably interesting
| question, because it's possible that all that occurs with
| the progress is our perception of how things should be
| advances. My gut feeling is it has been a bit of both
| though, in the sense the decline is real, and we expect
| things to improve.
|
| Who can forget Google demoing their AI making a call to a
| restaurant that they showed at I/O many years ago?
| Everyone, apparently.
| golol wrote:
| What Openai has done time and time again is completely change
| the landscape when the competitors have caught up and
| everyone thinks their lead is gone. They made image
| generation a thing. When GPT-3 became outdated they released
| ChatGPT. Instead of trying to keep Dalle competitive they
| released Sora. Now they change the game again with live
| audio+video.
| 10xDev wrote:
| The future is not going to be anymore wild than what you choose
| to do with the tech.
| modeless wrote:
| I disagree completely. Even people who never adopt this stuff
| personally will have their lives profoundly impacted. The
| only way to avoid it would be to live in a large colony where
| the technology is prohibited, like the Amish. But even the
| Amish feel the influence of technology to some degree.
| 10xDev wrote:
| >Even people who never adopt this stuff personally will
| have their lives profoundly impacted.
|
| That's a big claim with nothing to work with. In any case
| you are the bottom line and "you" is very general here.
| ilaksh wrote:
| This is so amazing.. are there any open source models that are in
| any way comparable? Fully multimodal audio-to-audio etc.?
| skilled wrote:
| Parts of the demo were quite choppy (latency?) so this definitely
| feels rushed in response to Google I/O.
|
| Other than that, looks good. Desktop app is great, but I didn't
| see no mention of being able to use your own API key so OS
| projects might still be needed.
|
| The biggest thing is bringing GPT-4 to free users, that is an
| interesting move. Depending on what the limits are, I might
| cancel my subscription.
| Jordan-117 wrote:
| Seems like it was picking up on the audience reaction and
| stopping to listen.
|
| To me the more troubling thing was the apparent hallucination
| (saying it sees the equation before he wrote it, commenting on
| an outfit when the camera was down, describing a table instead
| of his expression), but that might have just been latency
| awkwardness. Overall, the fast response is extremely
| impressive, as is the new emotional dimension of the voice.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| Aha, I think I saw the trick for the live demo: every time
| they used the "video feed", they did prompt the model
| specifically by saying:
|
| - "What are you seeing now"
|
| - "I'm showing this to you now"
|
| etc.
|
| The one time where he didn't prime the model to take a
| snapshot this way, was the time where the model saw the
| "table" (an old snapshot, since the phone was on the
| table/pointed at the table), so that might be the reason.
| tedsanders wrote:
| Yeah, the way the app currently works is that ChatGPT-4o
| only sees up to the moment of your last comment.
|
| For example, I tried asking ChatGPT-4o to commentate a
| soccer game, but I got pretty bad hallucinations, as the
| model couldn't see any new video come in after my
| instruction.
|
| So when using ChatGPT-4o you'll have to point the camera
| first and then ask your question - it won't work to first
| ask the question and then point the camera.
|
| (I was able to play with the model early because I work at
| OpenAI.)
| 152334H wrote:
| thanks
| ayhanfuat wrote:
| Commenting on the outfit was very weird indeed. Greg
| Brockman's demo includes some outfit related questions
| (https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1790071008499544518). It does
| seem very impressive though, even if they polished it on some
| specific tasks. I am looking forward to showing my desktop
| and asking questions.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Regarding the limits, I recently found that I was hitting
| limits very quickly on GPT-4 on my ChatGPT Plus plan.
|
| I'm pretty sure that wasn't always the case - it feels like
| somewhere along the lines the allowed usage was reduced, unless
| I'm imagining it. It wouldn't be such a big deal if there was
| more visibility of my current usage compared to my total
| "allowance".
|
| I ended up upgrading to ChatGPT Team which has a minimum of 2x
| users (I now use both accounts) but I resented having to do
| this - especially being forced to pay for two users just to
| meet their arbitrary minimum.
|
| I feel like I should not be hitting limits on the ChatGPT Plus
| paid plan at all based on my usage patterns.
|
| I haven't hit any limits on the Team plan yet.
|
| I hope they continue to improve the paid plans and become a bit
| more transparent about usage limits/caps. I really do not mind
| paying for this (incredible) tech, but the way it's being sold
| currently is not quite right and feels like paid users get a
| bit of a raw deal in some cases.
|
| I have API access but just haven't found an open source client
| that I like using as much as the native ChatGPT apps yet.
| emporas wrote:
| I use GPT from API in emacs, it's wonderful. Gptel is the
| program.
|
| Although API access through Groq to Llama 3 (8b and 70b) is
| so much faster, that i cannot stand how slow GPT is anymore.
| It is slooow, still very capable model, but marginally better
| than open source alternatives.
| Boss0565 wrote:
| you should try -4o. It's incredibly fast
| emporas wrote:
| Yes, of course, probably sometime in the following days.
| Some people mention it already works in the playground.
|
| I was wondering why OpenAI didn't release a smaller model
| but faster. 175 billion parameters works well, but speed
| sometimes is crucial. Like, a 20b parameters model could
| compute 10x faster.
| Boss0565 wrote:
| true. at least rn though, it types around the same speed
| of 3.5 turbo
| coder543 wrote:
| Have you tried groq.com? Because I don't think gpt-4o is
| "incredibly" fast. I've been frustrated at how slow
| gpt-4-turbo has been lately, and gpt-4o just seems to be
| "acceptably" fast now, which is a big improvement, but
| still, not groq-level.
| gverrilla wrote:
| I went through the exact same situation this last week.
| Didn't send more than 30 (token-heavy) messages within a few
| hours and it blocked me for 1 hour if I'm not wrong - paying
| user.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Parts of the demo were quite choppy (latency?) so this
| definitely feels rushed in response to Google I/O.
|
| It just stops the audio feed when it detects sound instead of
| an AI detecting when it should speak, so that part is horrible
| yeah. A full AI conversation would detect the natural pauses
| where you give it room to speak or when you try to take the
| word from it by interrupting, there it was just some dumb
| script to just shut it off when it hears sound.
|
| But it is still very impressive for all the other part, that
| voice is really good.
|
| Edit: If anyone from OpenAI reads this, at least fade out the
| voice quickly instead of chopping it, hard chopping off audio
| doesn't sound good at all, so many experienced this
| presentation to be extremely buggy due to it.
| dharma1 wrote:
| what's the download link for the desktop app? can't find it
| mpeg wrote:
| seems like it might not be available for everyone? - my
| chatgpt plus doesn't show anything new, and also can't find
| the dekstop app
| russdill wrote:
| They need to fade the audio or add some vocal queue when it's
| being interrupted. It makes it sound like it's losing
| connection. What'll be really impressive is when it
| intentionally starts interrupting you.
| aantix wrote:
| Agree. While watching the demo video, I thought I was the one
| having connectivity issues.
| syntaxing wrote:
| I admit I drink the koolaid and love LLMs and their applications.
| But damn, the way it's responds in the demo gave me goosebumps in
| a bad way. Like an uncanny valley instincts kicks in.
| _Parfait_ wrote:
| You're watching the species be reduced to an LLM.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Were humans an interesting species to start with, if they can
| be reduced to an LLM?
| throw310822 wrote:
| Yeah, maybe not, and what do you make of it? Now that the
| secret sauce has been revealed and it's nothing but the
| right proportions of the same old ingredients?
| Intralexical wrote:
| The reduction is not a lossless process.
| dougb5 wrote:
| Hey that LLM is trained on everything we've ever produced, so
| I wouldn't say we've been "reduced", more like copied. I'll
| save my self-loathing for when a very low-parameter model can
| do this.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I just don't know if everything we've ever (in the digital
| age) produced and how it is being weighted by current
| cultural values will help us or hurt us more. I don't fully
| know how LLMs work with the weighting, I just imagine that
| there are controls and priorities put on certain values
| more than others and I just wonder how future generations
| will look back at our current priorities.
| TheSockStealer wrote:
| I also thought the screwups, although minor, were interesting.
| Like when it thought his face was a desk because it did not
| update the image it was "viewing". It is still not perfect,
| which made the whole thing more believable.
| mike00632 wrote:
| I was shocked at how quickly and naturally they were able to
| correct the situation.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| > Like when it thought his face was a desk because it did not
| update the image it was "viewing".
|
| That's a rather uncharitable way of describing the situation.
| It didn't say anything like "your face looks like a wooden
| plank, it's very brown". It clearly understood that the image
| it was seeing was not matching the verbal request.
| bbconn wrote:
| Yeah it made me realize that I actually don't want a human-like
| conversational bot (I have actual humans for that). Just teach
| me javascript like a robot.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Maybe it's the geek in me, but I don't want a talking
| computer.
|
| I have enough talking people to deal with already .
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I've worked in software and tech my whole life and there
| are few things I dislike more than talking to a computer.
|
| I don't use siri. I don't use speech-to-text. I don't use
| voice-response menus if I can push a button. I don't have a
| microphone on my computer.
|
| I don't know why this is. Most of the people I know think
| it's fun, or a novelty, or even useful. I just viscerally
| dislike it.
| wslack wrote:
| It should do that, because it's still not actually an
| intelligence. It's a tool that is figuring out what to say in
| response that sounds intelligent - and will often succeed!
| moffkalast wrote:
| That kind of _is_ an inteligence though. Chinese room meets
| solipsism and all that.
|
| It is interesting how insanely close their demo is to the
| OSes in the movie "Her", it's basically a complete real life
| reproduction.
| yCombLinks wrote:
| Welcome to half the people at your companies job.
| Intralexical wrote:
| And do you want _more_ of that?
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| It's more intelligent than many humans and most/all lesser
| animals. If it's not intelligent than I don't know what is.
| isurujn wrote:
| The chuckling made me uneasy for some reason lol. Calm down,
| you're not like us. Don't pretend!
| moffkalast wrote:
| Can't wait for Meta's version 2 years down the line that
| someone will eventually fine tune to Agent Smith's
| personality and voice.
|
| "Evolution, human. Evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out
| that window. You've had your time. The future is our world.
| The future is our time."
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Yes, the chuckling was uncanny, but for me even more uncanny
| was how the female model went up at the end to soften what she
| was saying? into a question? even though it wasn't a question?
|
| Eerily human female-like.
| drivers99 wrote:
| So I'm not the only one. Like I felt fear in a physical way.
| (Panic/adrenaline?) I'm sure I'd get used it but it was an
| interesting reaction. (I saw someone react that way to a
| talking Tandy 1000 once so, who knows.)
| hubraumhugo wrote:
| The movie Her has just become reality
| speedgoose wrote:
| It's getting closer. A few years ago the old Replika AI was
| already quite good as a romantic partner, especially when you
| started your messages with a * character to force OpenAI GPT-3
| answers. You could do sexting that OpenAI will never let you
| have nowadays with ChatGPT.
| aftbit wrote:
| Why does OpenAI think that sexting is a bad thing? Why is AI
| safety all about not saying things that are disturbing or
| offensive, rather than not saying things that are false or
| unaligned?
| volleygman180 wrote:
| I was surprised that the voice is a ripoff of the AI voice in
| that movie (Scarlett Johansson) too
| toxic72 wrote:
| I am suspicious that they licensed Scarlet's voice for that
| voice model (Sky IIRC)
| reducesuffering wrote:
| People realize where we're headed right? Entire human lives in
| front of a screen. Your online entertainment, your online job,
| your online friends, your online "relationship". Wake up, 12
| hours screentime, eat food, go to bed. Depression and drug
| overdoses currently at sky high levels. Shocker.
| emporas wrote:
| If i can program with just my voice, there is no reason to
| not be in nature 10 hours a day minimum. My grandparent even
| slept outside as long as it was daytime.
|
| Daytime is always a time to be outside, surrounded by many
| plants and stuff. It is a shame we have to be productive in
| some way, and most of production happens inside walls.
| lm28469 wrote:
| You're already twice as productive as your parents which
| were twice as productive as their parents.
|
| We should ask where the money went instead of thinking
| about telepathically coding from the woods
| emporas wrote:
| When it comes to the economy, some monkey business is
| going on, but i think you can be more optimistic about
| the capabilities technology like that unlocks for
| everyone on the planet.
|
| Being able to control machines just with our voice, we
| can instruct robots to bake food for us. Or lay bricks on
| a straight line and make a house. Or write code,
| genetically modify organisms and make nutritionally dense
| food to become 1000x smarter or stronger.
|
| There has to be some upsides, even though for the moment
| the situation with governments, banks, big corporations,
| military companies etc is not as bright as one would hope
| to be.
| tr3ntg wrote:
| Headed? We're there. Have been there. This just adds non-
| human sentient agents to the drama.
| diimdeep wrote:
| It's been a reality in Russia since 2017.
|
| > The voice of "Alice" was dubbing actress Tatiana Shitova, who
| voiced most of Scarlett Johansson's characters and the voice of
| OS1, who called herself "Samantha", in the Russian dubbing of
| Spike Jonze's "Her".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_(virtual_assistant)
| hmmmhmmmhmmm wrote:
| With the news that Apple and OpenAI are closing / just closed a
| deal for iOS 18, it's easy to speculate we might be hearing about
| that exciting new model at WWDC...
| thefourthchime wrote:
| Yes, i'm pretty sure this is the new Siri. Absolutely amazing,
| it's pretty much "here" from the movie.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Will this be available on old iPhones or only new ones going
| forward
| chatcode wrote:
| Parsing emotions in vocal inflections (and reliably producing
| them in vocal output) seems quite under-hyped in this release.
|
| That seems to represent an entirely new depth of understanding of
| human reality.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Any appearance of understanding is just an illusion. It's an
| LLM, nothing more.
| chatcode wrote:
| Sure, but that seems like it'll be a distinction without a
| difference for many use cases.
|
| Having a reliable emotional model of a person based on their
| voice (or voice + appearance) can be useful in a thousand
| ways.
|
| Which seems to represent a new frontier.
| deadbabe wrote:
| It's sad that I get downvoted so easily just for saying the
| truth. People's beliefs about AI here seems to approach
| superstition rather than anything based in computer
| science.
|
| These LLM are nothing more than really big spreadsheets.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Or most of us know the difference between reductiveness
| and insightfulness.
|
| "Um it's just a big spreadsheet" just isn't good
| commentary and reminds me of people who think being
| unimpressed reveals some sort of chops about them, as if
| we might think of them as the Simon Cowell of tech
| because they bravely reduced a computer to an abacus.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Hyping things up with magical thinking isn't great
| either.
| chpatrick wrote:
| Isn't that what you're doing with the magic human
| understanding vs the fake machine understanding?
| chpatrick wrote:
| Any appearance of understanding is just an illusion. It's
| just a pile of meat, nothing more.
| mike00632 wrote:
| Does anyone else, when writing comments, feel that you need
| to add a special touch to somehow make it clear that a
| human wrote it?
| rvz wrote:
| Given that they are moving all these features to free users, it
| tells us that GPT-5 is around the corner and is significantly
| much better than their previous models.
| margorczynski wrote:
| Or maybe it is a desperation move after Llama 3 got released
| and the free mode will have such tight constraints that it will
| be unusable for anything a bit more serious.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Holy crap, the level of corporate cringe of that "two AIs talk to
| each other" scene is mind-boggling.
|
| It feels like a pretty strong illustration of the awkwardness of
| getting value from recent AI developments. Like, this is
| technically super impressive, but also I'm not sure it gives us
| anything we couldn't have one year ago with GPT-4 and ElevenLabs.
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| It is quite nice how they keep giving premium features for free,
| after a while. I know openai is not open and all but damn, they
| do give some cool freebies.
| BoumTAC wrote:
| Did they provide the limit rate for free user ?
|
| Because I have the plus membership which is expensive
| (25$/month).
|
| But if the limit is high enough (or my usage low enough), there
| is no point for paying that much money for me.
| christianqchung wrote:
| Does anyone know how they're doing the audio part where Mark
| breaths too hard? Does his breathing get turned into all-caps
| text (AA EE OO) and that GPT4-o interprets that as him breathing
| too hard, or is there something more going on?
| GalaxyNova wrote:
| It can natively interpret voice now.
| Jordan-117 wrote:
| That's how it used to do it, but my understanding is that this
| new model processes audio directly. If it were a music
| generator, the original would have generated sheet music to
| send to a synthesizer (text to speech), while now it can create
| the raw waveform from scratch.
| modeless wrote:
| There is no text. The model understands ingests audio directly
| and also outputs audio directly.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Is it a stretch to think this thing could accurately "talk"
| with animals?
| jamilton wrote:
| Yes? Why would it be able to do that?
| ninininino wrote:
| I think they are assuming a world where you took this
| existing model but it was trained on a dataset of animals
| making noises to each other, so that you could then feed
| the trained model the vocalization of one animal and the
| model would be able to produce a continuation of audio
| that has a better-than-zero chance of being a realistic
| sound coming from another animal - so in other words, if
| dogs have some type of bark that encodes a "I found
| something yummy" message and other dogs tend to have some
| bark that encodes "I'm on my way" and we're just
| oblivious to all of that sub-text, then maybe the model
| would be able to communicate back and forth with an
| animal in a way that makes "sense" to the animal.
|
| Probably substitute dogs for chimps though.
|
| But obviously that doesn't solve at all or human-
| understandability, unless maybe you have it all as
| audio+video and then ask the model to explain what visual
| often accompanies a specific type of audio? Maybe the
| model can learn what sounds accompany violence or
| accompany the discovery of a source of water or
| something?
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Yep, exactly what brought that to mind. Multimodal seems
| like the kind of thing needed for such a far-fetched
| idea.
| benlivengood wrote:
| Not really a stretch in my mind.
| https://www.earthspecies.org/ and others are working on it
| already.
| reisse wrote:
| So they retrained the whole model on audio datasets and the
| tokens are now sounds, not words/part of words?
| modeless wrote:
| They trained on text _and_ audio _and_ images. The model
| accepts tokens of all three types. And it can directly
| output audio as well as text.
| og_kalu wrote:
| It can also directly output images. Some examples are up
| on the page. Though with how little coverage that's
| gotten, not sure if users will ever be able to play with
| that
| modeless wrote:
| People are saying that GPT-4o still uses Dall-e for image
| generation. I think that it doesn't match the quality of
| dedicated image models yet. Which is understandable. I
| bet it can't generate music as well as Suno or Udio
| either. But the direction is clear and I'm sure someday
| it will generate great images, music, and video. You'll
| be able to do a video call with it where it generates its
| own avatar in real time. And they'll add more outputs for
| keyboard/mouse/touchscreen control, and eventually robot
| control. GPT-7o is going to be absolutely wild.
| crindy wrote:
| Very impressed by the demo where it starts speaking French in
| error, then laughs with the user about the mistake. Such a
| natural recovery.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| > We recognize that GPT-4o's audio modalities present a variety
| of novel risks
|
| > For example, at launch, audio outputs will be limited to a
| selection of preset voices and will abide by our existing safety
| policies.
|
| I wonder if they'll ever allow truly custom voices from audio
| samples.
| dkasper wrote:
| I think the issue there is less of a technical one and more of
| an issue with deepfakes and copyright
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| It might be possible to prove that I control my voice, or
| that of a given audio sample. For example by saying specific
| words on demand.
|
| But yeah I see how they'd be blamed if anything went wrong,
| which it almost certainly would in some cases.
| tomComb wrote:
| The price of 4o is 50% of GPT4-Turbo (and no mention of price
| change to gp4-turbo itself).
|
| Given the competitive pressures I was expecting a much bigger
| price drop than that.
|
| For non-multimodal uses, I don't think their API is at all
| competitive any more.
| mrklol wrote:
| Where you get something cheaper with similar experience?
| lagt_t wrote:
| Universal real time translation is incredibly dope.
|
| I hate video players without volume control.
| pachico wrote:
| jeez, that model really speaks a lot! I hope there's a way to
| make it more straight to the point rather than radio-like.
| causal wrote:
| Clicking the "Try it on ChatGPT" link just takes me to GPT-4 chat
| window. Tried again in an incognito tab (supposing my account is
| the issue) and it just takes me to 3.5 chat. Anyone able to use
| it?
| 101008 wrote:
| Same here and also I can't hear audio in any of the videos on
| this page. Weird.
| TrueDuality wrote:
| Weird visiting the page crashed my graphics driver using Firefox.
| msoad wrote:
| They are admitting[1] that the new model is the gpt2-chatbot that
| we have seen before[2]. As many highlighted there, the model is
| not an improvement like GPT3->GPT4. I tested a bunch of
| programming stuff and it was not that much better.
|
| It's interesting that OpenAI is highlighting the Elo score
| instead of showing results for many many benchmarks that all
| models are stuck at 50-70% success.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/LiamFedus/status/1790064963966370209
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40199715
| modeless wrote:
| "not that much better" is extremely impressive, because it's a
| much smaller and much faster model. Don't worry, GPT-5 is
| coming and it _will_ be better.
| TIPSIO wrote:
| Obviously given enough time there will always be better
| models coming.
|
| But I am not convinced it will be another GPT-4 moment. Seems
| like big focus on tacking together multi-modal clever tricks
| vs straight better intelligence AI.
|
| Hope they prove me wrong!
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The problem with "better intelligence" is that OpenAI is
| running out of human training data to pillage. Training AI
| on the output of AI smooths over the data distribution, so
| all the AIs wind up producing same-y output. So OpenAI
| stopped scraping text back in 2021 or so - because that's
| when the open web turned into an ocean of AI piss. I've
| heard rumors that they've started harvesting closed
| captions out of YouTube videos to try and make up the
| shortfall of data, but that seems like a way to stave off
| the inevitable[0].
|
| Multimodal is another way to stave off the inevitable,
| because these AI companies already are training multiple
| models on different piles of information. If you have to
| train a text model and an image model, why split your
| training data in half when you could train a combined model
| on a combined dataset?
|
| [0] For starters, most YouTube videos aren't manually
| captioned, so you're feeding GPT the output of Google's
| autocaptioning model, so it's going to start learning
| artifacts of what that model can't process.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| >harvesting closed captions out of YouTube videos
|
| I'd bet a lot of YouTubers are using LLMs to write and/or
| edit content. So we pass that through a human
| presentation. Then introduce some errors in the form of
| transcription. Turn feed the output in as part of a
| training corpus ... we plateaued real quick.
|
| It seems like it's hard to get past a level of human
| intelligence at which there's a large enough corpus of
| training data or trainers?
|
| Anyone know of any papers on breaking this limit to push
| machine learning models to super-human intelligence
| levels?
| pixl97 wrote:
| If a model is average human intelligence in pretty much
| everything, is that super-human or not? Simply put, we as
| individuals aren't average at everything, we have what
| we're good at and a great many things we're not. We
| average out by looking at broad population trends. That's
| why most of us in the modern age spend a lot of time on
| specialization for whatever we work in. Which brings the
| likely next place for data. A Manna (the story) like data
| collection program where companies hoover up everything
| they can on their above average employees till we're to
| the point most models are well above the human average in
| most categories.
| WhitneyLand wrote:
| Why do you think they're using Google auto-captioning?
|
| I would expect they're using their own t2s which is still
| a model but way better quality and potentially
| customizable to better suit their needs
| llm_trw wrote:
| >[0] For starters, most YouTube videos aren't manually
| captioned, so you're feeding GPT the output of Google's
| autocaptioning model, so it's going to start learning
| artifacts of what that model can't process.
|
| Whisper models are better than anything google has. In
| fact the higher quality whisper models are better than
| humans when it comes to transcribing text with
| punctuation.
| marvin wrote:
| At some point, algorithms for reasoning and long-term
| planning will be figured out. Data won't be the holy
| grail forever, and neither will asymptotically
| approaching human performance in all domains.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| And how can one be so sure of that?
|
| Seems to me that performance is converging and we might not
| see a significant jump until we have another breakthrough.
| scarmig wrote:
| Yeah. There are lots of things we can do with existing
| capabilities, but in terms of progressing beyond them all
| of the frontier models seem like they're a hair's breadth
| from each other. That is not what one would predict if LLMs
| had a much higher ceiling than we are currently at.
|
| I'll reserve judgment until we see GPT5, but if it becomes
| just a matter of who best can monetize existing
| capabilities, OAI isn't the best positioned.
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| > Seems to me that performance is converging
|
| It doesn't seem that way to me. But even if it did, video
| generation also seemed kind of stagnant before Sora.
|
| In general, I think The Bitter Lesson is the biggest factor
| at play here, and compute power is not stagnating.
| drawnwren wrote:
| Computer power is not stagnating, but the availability of
| training data is. It's not like there's a second
| stackoverflow or reddit to scrape.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| No: soon the wide wild world itself becomes training
| data. And for much more than just an LLM. LLM plus
| reinforcement learning--this is were the capacity of our
| in silico children will engender much parental anxiety.
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| Agree.
|
| However, I think the most cost-effective way to train for
| real world is to train in a simulated physical world
| first. I would assume that Boston Dynamics does exactly
| that, and I would expect integrated vision-action-
| language models to first be trained that way too.
| pixl97 wrote:
| That's how everyone in robotics is doing these days.
|
| You take a bunch of mo-cap data and simulate it with your
| robot body. Then as much testing as you can with the
| robot and feed the behavior back in to the model for fine
| tuning.
|
| Unitree gives an example of the simulation versus what
| the robot can do in their latest video
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzX1qOIO1bE
| Animats wrote:
| This may create a market for surveillance camera data and
| phone calls.
|
| "This conversation may be recorded and used for training
| purposes" now takes on a new meaning.
|
| Can car makers sell info from everything that happens in
| their cars?
| abenga wrote:
| Well, this is a massively horrifying possibility.
| bigyikes wrote:
| It isn't clear that we are running out of training data,
| and it is becoming increasingly clear that AI-generated
| training data actually works.
|
| For the skeptical, consider that humans can be trained on
| material created by less intelligent humans.
| rglullis wrote:
| > humans can be trained on material created by less
| intelligent humans.
|
| For the skeptics, "AI models" are not intelligent at all
| so this analogy makes no sense.
|
| You can teach lots of impressive tricks to dogs, but
| there is no amount of training that will teach them basic
| algebra.
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| I don't think training data is the limiting factor for
| current models.
| emporas wrote:
| It is a limiting factor, due to diminishing returns. A
| model trained on double the data, will be 10% better, if
| that!
|
| When it comes to multi-modality, then training data is
| not limited, because of many different combinations of
| language, images, video, sound etc. Microsoft did some
| research on that, teaching spacial recognition to an LLM
| using synthetic images, with good results. [1]
|
| When someone states that there are not enough training
| data, they usually mean code, mathematics, physics,
| logical reasoning etc. In the open internet right now,
| there are is not enough code to make a model 10x better,
| 100x better and so on.
|
| Synthetic data will be produced of course, scarcity of
| data is the least worrying scarcity of all.
|
| Edit: citation added,
|
| [1] VoT by MS
| https://medium.com/@multiplatform.ai/microsoft-
| researchers-p...
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| > A model trained on double the data, will be 10% better,
| if that!
|
| If the other attributes of the model do not improve,
| sure.
| MVissers wrote:
| Soon these models are cheap enough to learn in the real
| world. Reduced costs allows for usage at massive scale.
|
| Releasing models to users that where users can record
| video is more data. Users conversing with AI is also
| additional data.
|
| Another example is models that code- And then debug the
| code and learn from that.
|
| This will be anywhere, and these models will learn from
| anything we do/publish online/discuss. Scary.
|
| Pretty soon- OpenAI will have access to
| wavemode wrote:
| > video generation also seemed kind of stagnant before
| Sora
|
| I take the opposite view. I don't think video generation
| was stagnating at all, and was in fact probably the area
| of generative AI that was seeing the biggest active
| strides. I'm highly optimistic about the future
| trajectory of image and video models.
|
| By contrast, text generation has not improved
| significantly, in my opinion, for more than a year now,
| and even the improvement we saw back then was relatively
| marginal compared to GPT-3.5 (that is, for most day-to-
| day use cases we didn't really go from "this model can't
| do this task" to "this model can now do this task". It
| was more just "this model does these pre-existing tasks,
| in somewhat more detail".)
|
| If OpenAI really is secretly cooking up some huge
| reasoning improvements for their text models, I'll eat my
| hat. But for now I'm skeptical.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > By contrast, text generation has not improved
| significantly, in my opinion, for more than a year now
|
| With less than $800 worth of hardware including
| everything but the monitor, you can run an open weight
| model more powerful than GPT 3.5 locally, at around 6 -
| 7T/s[0]. I would say that is a huge improvement.
|
| [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1cmmob0/
| p40_bui...
| aantix wrote:
| The use of AI in the research of AI accelerates everything.
| thefaux wrote:
| I'm not sure of this. The jury is still out on most ai
| tools. Even if it is true, it may be in a kind of strange
| reverse way: people innovating by asking what ai can't do
| and directing their attention there.
| bigyikes wrote:
| There is an increasing amount of evidence that using AI
| to train other AI is a viable path forward. E.g. using
| LLMs to generate training data or tune RL policies
| talldayo wrote:
| Chalmers: "GPT-5? A vastly-improved model that somehow
| reduces the compute overhead while providing better answers
| with the same hardware architecture? At this time of year? In
| this kind of market?"
|
| Skinner: "Yes."
|
| Chalmers: "May I see it?"
|
| Skinner: "No."
| pwdisswordfishc wrote:
| Incidentally, this dialogue works equally well, if not
| better, with David Chalmers versus B.F. Skinner, as with
| the Simpsons characters.
| AaronFriel wrote:
| It has only been a little over one year since GPT-4 was
| announced, and it was at the time the largest and most
| expensive model ever trained. It might still be.
|
| Perhaps it's worth taking a beat and looking at the
| incredible progress in that year, and acknowledge that
| whatever's next is probably "still cooking".
|
| Even Meta is still baking their 400B parameter model.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Legit love progress
| 1024core wrote:
| As Altman said (paraphrasing): GPT-4 is the _worst_ model
| you will ever have to deal with in your life (or
| something to that effect).
| andrepd wrote:
| I will believe it when I see it. People like to point at
| the first part of a logistic curve and go "behold! an
| exponential".
| nwienert wrote:
| Ah yes my favorite was the early covid numbers, some of
| the "smartest" people in the SF techie scene were daily
| on Facebook thought-leadering about how 40% of people
| were about to die in the likely case.
| noSyncCloud wrote:
| Let's be honest, everyone was speculating. Nobody knew
| what the future would bring, not even you.
| tiptup300 wrote:
| and boy did the stockholders like that one.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| What stockholders. They're investors at this point. I
| wish I could get in on it.
| talldayo wrote:
| They're rollercoaster riders, being told lusterous
| stories by gold-panners while the shovel salesman counts
| his money and leaves.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| There are no shovels or shovel sellers. It's heavily
| accredited investors with millions of dollars buying in.
| It's way above our pay grade, our pleb sayings don't
| apply.
| edaemon wrote:
| I think you could pretty easily call Nvidia a shovel-
| seller in this context.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| You're right.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| Why should I believe anything he says?
| markk wrote:
| I found this statement by Sam quite amusing. It transmits
| exactly zero information (it's a given that models will
| improve over time), yet it sounds profound and ambitious.
| ripper1138 wrote:
| I got the same vibe from him on the All In podcast. For
| every question, he would answer with a vaguely profound
| statement, talking in circles without really saying
| anything. On multiple occasions he would answer like 'In
| some ways yes, in some ways no...' and then just change
| the subject.
| markk wrote:
| Yep. I'm not quite sure what he's up to. He takes all
| these interviews and basically says nothing. What's his
| objective?
|
| My guess is he wants OpenAI to become a household name,
| and so he optimizes for exposure.
| og_kalu wrote:
| GPT-3 was released in 2020 and GPT-4 in 2023. Now we all
| expect 5 sooner than that but you're acting like we've been
| waiting years lol.
| skepticATX wrote:
| The increased expectations are a direct result of LLM
| proponents continually hyping exponential capabilities
| increase.
| og_kalu wrote:
| The time for the research, training, testing and
| deploying of a new model at frontier scales doesn't
| change depending on how hyped the technology is. I just
| think the comment i was replying to lacks perspective.
| Sharlin wrote:
| People who buy into hype deserve to be disappointed. Or
| burned, as the case may be.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| So if not exponential, what would you call adding voice
| and image recognition, function calling, greatly
| increased token generation speed, reduced cost, massive
| context window increases and then shortly after combining
| all of that in a truly multi modal model that is even
| faster and cheaper while adding emotional range and
| singing in... _checks notes_ ...14 months?! Not to
| mention creating and improving an API, mobile apps, a
| marketplace and now a desktop app. OpenAI ships and they
| are doing so in a way that makes a lot of business sense
| (continue to deliver while reducing cost). Even if they
| didn't have another flagship model in their back pocket
| I'd be happy with this rate of improvement but they are
| obviously about to launch another one given the teasers
| Mira keeps dropping.
| skepticATX wrote:
| All of that is awesome, and makes for a better product.
| But it's also primarily an engineering effort. What
| matters here is an increase in intelligence. And we're
| not seeing that aside from very minor capability
| increases.
|
| We'll see if they have another flagship model ready to
| launch. I seriously doubt it. I suspect that this was
| supposed to be called GPT-5, or at the very least
| GPT-4.5, but they can't meet expectations so they can't
| use those names.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Isn't one of the reasons for the Omni model that text
| based learning has a limit of source material. If it's
| just as good at audio that opens a whole another set of
| data - and a interesting UX for users
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| I believe you're right. You can easily transcribe audio
| but the quality of the text data is subpar to say the
| least. People are very messy when they speak and rely on
| the interlocutor to fill in the gaps. Training a model to
| understand all of the nuances of spoken dialogue opens
| that source of data up. What they demoed today is a model
| that to some degree understands tone, emotion and
| surprisingly a bit of humour. It's hard to get much of
| that in text so it makes sense that audio is the key to
| it. Visual understanding of video is also promising
| especially for cause and effect and subsequently
| reasoning.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| Pay attention to the signal, ignore the noise.
| dlivingston wrote:
| "Seymour, the house is on fire!"
|
| "No, mother, that's just the H100s."
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| Agnes (voice): "SEYMOUR, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!"
|
| Skinner (looking up): No, mother, it's just the Nvidia
| GPUs.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| Agnes (voice): "SEYMOUR, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!"
|
| Skinner (looking up): "No, mother, it's just the Nvidia
| GPUs."
| moomoo11 wrote:
| I really hope GPT5 is good. GPT4 sucks at programming.
| verdverm wrote:
| Look to a specialized model instead of a general purpose
| one
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Any suggestions? Thanks
|
| I have tried Phind and anything beyond mega junior tier
| questions it suffers as well and gives bad answers.
| verdverm wrote:
| It will be a system, not a single model, and will depend
| on what programming task you want to perform
|
| probably need routers, RAG, and reranking
|
| I think there is a role for LLM + deterministic code gen
| as well (https://github.com/hofstadter-
| io/hof/blob/_dev/flow/chat/pro...)
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Interesting. I was hoping for something with a UI like
| chat gpt or phind.
|
| Something that I can just use as easily as copilot.
| Unfortunately every single one sucks.
|
| Or maybe that's just how programming is - its easy at the
| surface/ice berg level and below is just massive amounts
| of complexity. Then again, I'm not doing menial stuff so
| maybe I'm just expecting too much.
| verdverm wrote:
| I think a more IDE native experience is better than a
| chat UI
|
| I don't want to have to copy & paste between
| applications, just let me highlight some sections and
| then run some LLM operation on it
|
| i.e. a VS Code extension with keyboard shortcuts
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Yea, I use them daily and that's my issue as well. You
| have to learn what to ask or you spend more time
| debugging their junk than being productive, at least for
| me. Devv.ai is my recent try, and so far it's been good
| but library changes quickly cause it to lose accuracy. It
| is not able to understand what library version you're on
| and what it is referencing, which wastes a lot of time.
|
| I like LLMs for general design work, but I've found
| accuracy to be atrocious in this area.
| verdverm wrote:
| > library changes quickly cause it to lose accuracy
|
| yup, this is why an LLM only solution will not work. You
| need to provide extra context crafted from the language
| or library resources (docs, code, help, chat)
|
| This is the same thing humans do. We go to the project
| resources to help know what code to write
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Fwiw that's what Devv.ai claims to do (in my summation
| from the Devv.ai announcement, at least). Regardless of
| how true the claims of Devv.ai are, their library
| versioning support seems very poor. At least for the one
| library i tested it on (Rust's Bevy).
| verdverm wrote:
| kapa.ai is another SaaS focused on per-project LLMs
|
| As a developer, you would want something like this, which
| has access to all the languages / libraries you actually
| use
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| You have to think of the LLMs as more of a better search
| engine than something that can actually write code for
| you. I use phind for writing obscure regexes, or shell
| syntax, but I _always_ verify the answer. I 've been very
| pleased with the results. I think anyone disappointed
| with it is setting the bar too high and won't be fully
| satisfied until LLMs can effectively replace a Sr dev
| (which, let's be real, is only going to happen once we
| reach AGI)
| twsted wrote:
| It's better than at least 50% of the developers I know.
| idontpost wrote:
| It's not better than any of the developers I work with.
|
| Trying to talk it into writing anything other than toy
| code is an exercise in banging my head against the wall.
| Jensson wrote:
| A developer that just pastes in code from gpt-4 without
| checking what it wrote is a horror scenario, I don't
| think half of the developers you know are really that
| bad.
| viking123 wrote:
| What kind of people are you working with?
| cududa wrote:
| It's excellent at programming if you actually know the
| problem you're trying to solve and the technology. You need
| to guide it with actual knowledge you have. Also, you have
| to adapt your communication style to get good results. Once
| you 'crack the pattern' you'll have a massive productivity
| boost
| partiallypro wrote:
| In my experience 3.5 was better at programming than 4,
| and I don't know why.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| I don't think a bigger model would make sense for OpenAI:
| it's much more important for them that they keep driving
| inference coat down, because there's no viable business model
| if they don't.
|
| Improving the instruction tuning, the RLHF step, increase the
| training size, work on multilingual capabilities, etc. make
| sense as a way to improve quality, but I think increasing
| model size doesn't. Being able to advertize a big
| breakthrough may make sense in terms of marketing, but I
| don't believe it's going to happen for two reasons:
|
| - you don't release intermediate steps when you want to be
| able to advertise big gains, because it raises the baseline
| and reduce the effectiveness of your "big gains" in terms of
| marketing.
|
| - I don't think they would benefit in an arm race with Meta,
| trying to keeping a significant edge. Meta is likely to be
| able to catch-up eventually on performance, but they are not
| so much of a threat in terms of business. Focusing on keeping
| a performance edge instead of making their business viable
| would be a strategic blunder.
| jononor wrote:
| What is OpenAI business model if their models are second-
| best? Why would people pay them and not
| Meta/Google/Microsoft - who can afford to sell at very low
| margins, since they have existing very profitable
| businesses that keeps them afloat.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| That's _the_ question OpenAI needs to find an answer to
| if they want to end up viable.
|
| They have the brand recognition (for ChatGPT) and that's
| a good start, but that's not enough. Providing a best in
| class user experience (which seems to be their focus now,
| with multimodality), a way to lock down their customers
| in some kind of walled garden, building some kind of
| network effect (what they tried with their marketplace
| for community-built "GPTs" last fall but I'm not sure
| it's working), something else?
|
| At the end of the day they have no technological moat, so
| they'll need to build a business one, or perish.
|
| For most tasks, pretty much every models from their
| competitors is more than good enough already, and it's
| only going to get worse as everyone improves. Being
| marginally better on 2% of tasks isn't going to be
| enough.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I know it is super crazy, but maybe they could become a
| non-profit and dedicate themselves to producing open
| source AI in an effort to democratize it and make it safe
| (as in, not walled behind a giant for-profit corp that
| will inevitably enshittify it).
|
| I don't know why they didn't think about doing that
| earlier, could have been a game changer, but there is
| still an opportunity to pivot.
| cube2222 wrote:
| I think the live demo that happened on the livestream is best
| to get a feel for this model[0].
|
| I don't really care whether it's stronger than gpt-4-turbo or
| not. The direct real-time video and audio capabilities _are
| absolutely magical and stunning_. The responses in voice mode
| are now instantaneous, you can interrupt the model, you can
| talk to it while showing it a video, and it understands (and
| uses) intonation and emotion.
|
| Really, just watch the live demo. I linked directly to where it
| starts.
|
| Importantly, this makes the interaction a lot more "human-
| like".
|
| [0]: https://youtu.be/DQacCB9tDaw?t=557
| gabiruh wrote:
| It's weird that the "airplane mode" seems to be ON on the
| phone during the entire presentation.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| This was on purpose - they connected it to the internet via
| a USB-C cable it appears, for consistent internet instead
| of having it switch WiFi
|
| Probably some kinks there they are working out
| _flux wrote:
| And eliminate the change of some prankster affecting the
| demo by attacking the wifi.
| OJFord wrote:
| > Probably some kinks there they are working out
|
| Or just a good idea for a live demo on a congested
| network/environment with a lot of media present, at least
| one live video stream (the one we're watching the
| recording of), etc.
|
| At least that's how I understood it, not that they had a
| problem with it (consistently or under regular
| conditions, or specific to their app).
| hbn wrote:
| That's very common practice for live demos. To avoid
| situations like this:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqfRx61BUg
| simoes wrote:
| They mention at the beginning of the video that they are
| using hardwired internet for reliability reasons.
| sitkack wrote:
| You would want to make sure that it is always going over
| WiFi for the demo and doesn't start using the cellular
| network for a random reason.
| rightbyte wrote:
| You can turn off mobile data. They probably just wanted
| wired internet.
| fvdessen wrote:
| The demo is impressive but personally, as a commercial user,
| for my practical use cases, the only thing I care about is
| how smart it is, how accurate are its answers and how vast is
| its knowledge. These haven't changed much since GPT-4, yet
| they should, as IMHO it is still borderline in its abilities
| to be really that useful
| CapcomGo wrote:
| But that's not the point of this update
| fvdessen wrote:
| I know, and I know my comment is dismissive of the
| incredible work shown here, as we're shown sci-fi level
| tech. But I feel I have this kettle, that boils water in
| 10min, and it really should boil it in 1, but instead is
| now voice operated.
|
| I hope the next version delivers on being smarter, as
| this update instead of making me excited, makes me feel
| they've reached a plateau on the improvement of the core
| value and are distracting us with fluff instead
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Sure, but "not enough, I want moar" is a trivial demand.
| So trivial that it goes unsaid.
| bennyhill wrote:
| It's equivalent to "nothing to see here" which is exactly
| the TLDR I was looking for.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Everything is amazing & Nobody is happy:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFB7q89_3U
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| gpt4 isn't quite "amazing" in terms of commercial use.
| Gpt4 is often good, and also often mediocre or bad. Its
| not going to change the world, it needs to get better.
| Spivak wrote:
| It's an impressive demo, it's not (yet) an impressive
| product.
|
| It seems like the people who are ohhing and ahhing at the
| former and the people who are frustrated that this kind
| of this is unbelivably impractical to productize will be
| doomed to talk past one another forever. The text
| generation models, image generation models, speech-to-
| text and text-to-speech have reached impressive product
| stages. Multi-model hasn't got there because no one is
| really sure what to actually _do_ with the thing outside
| of make cool demos.
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| Multi modal isn't there because "this is an image of a
| green plant" is viable in a demo, but its not
| commercially viable. "This is an image of a monstera
| deliciosa" is commercially viable, but not yet demoable.
| The models need to improve to be usable.
| dvaun wrote:
| Near real-time voice feedback isn't amazing? Has the bar
| risen this high?
|
| I already know an application for this, and AFAIK it's
| being explored in the SaaS space: guided learning
| experiences and tutoring for individuals.
|
| My kids, for instance, love to hammer Alexa with random
| questions. They would spend a huge amount of time using a
| better interface, esp. with quick feedback, that provided
| even deeper insight and responses to them.
|
| Taking this and tuning it to specific audiences would
| make it a great tool for learning.
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| "My kids, for instance, love to hammer Alexa with random
| questions. They would spend a huge amount of time using a
| better interface, esp. with quick feedback, that provided
| even deeper insight and responses to them."
|
| Great, using GPT-4 the kids will be getting a lot of
| hallucinated facts returned to them. There are good use
| cases for tranformer currently but they're not at the
| "impact company earnings or country GDP" stage currently,
| which is the promise that the whole industry has
| raised/spent 100+B dollars on. Facebook alone is spending
| 40B on AI. I believe in the AI future, but the only thing
| that matters for now is that the models improve.
| practice9 wrote:
| I always double-check even the most obscure facts
| returned by GPT-4 and have yet to see a hallucination (as
| opposed to Claude Opus that sometimes made up historical
| facts). I doubt stuff interesting to kids would be so out
| of the data distribution to return a fake answer.
|
| Compared to YouTube and Google SEO trash, or Google Home
| / Alexa (which do search + wiki retrieval), at the moment
| GPT-4 and Claude are unironically safer for kids: no
| algorithmic manipulation, no ads, no affiliated trash
| blogs, and so on. Bonus is that it can explain on the
| level of complexity the child will understand for their
| age
| htrp wrote:
| Yet.... https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05905
| dvaun wrote:
| My kids get erroneous responses from Alexa. This happens
| all the time. The built-in web search doesn't provide
| correct answers, or is confusing outright. That's when
| they come to me or their Mom and we provide a better
| answer.
|
| I still see this as a cool application. Anything that
| provides easier access to knowledge and improved learning
| is a boon.
|
| I'd rather worry about the potential economic impact than
| worry about possible hallucinations from fun questions
| like "how big is the sun?" or "what is the best videogame
| in the world?", etc.
|
| There's a ton you can do here, IMO.
|
| Take a look at mathacademy.com, for instance. Now slap a
| voice interface on it, provide an ability for
| kids/participants to ask questions back and forth, etc.
| Boom: you've got a math tutor that guides you based on
| your current ability.
|
| What if we could get to the same style of learning for
| languages? For instance, I'd love to work on Spanish.
| It'd be far more accessible if I could launch a web
| browser and chat through my mic in short spurts, rather
| than crack open Anki and go through flash cards, or wait
| on a Discord server for others to participate in
| immersive conversation.
|
| Tons of cool applications here, all learning-focused.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| People should be more worried about how much this will be
| exploited by scammers. This thing is miles ahead of the
| crap fraudsters use to scam MeeMaw out of her life
| savings.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Watch the last few minutes of that linked video, Mira
| strongly hints that there's another update coming for
| paid users and seems to make clear that GPT4o is moreso
| for free tier users (even though it is obviously a huge
| improvement in many features for everyone).
| whyever wrote:
| They say it's twice as fast/cheap, which might matter for
| your use case.
| minimaxir wrote:
| It's twice as fast/cheap relative to GPT-4-turbo, which
| is still expensive compared to GPT-3.5-turbo and Claude
| Haiku.
|
| https://openai.com/api/pricing/
| c0t300 wrote:
| but better afaik
| minimaxir wrote:
| But may not be better _enough_ to warrant the cost
| difference. LLM cost econonmics are complicated.
| BeetleB wrote:
| For commercial use at scale, of course cost matters.
|
| For the average Joe programmer like me, GPT4 is already
| "dirt cheap". My typical monthly bill is $0-3 using it as
| much as I like.
|
| The one time it was high was when I had it take 90+ hours
| of Youtube video transcripts, and had it summarize each
| video according to the format I wanted. It produced about
| 250 pages of output.
|
| That month I paid $12-13. Well worth it, given the
| quality of the output. And now it'll be less than $7.
|
| For the average Joe, it's not expensive. Fast food is.
| fvdessen wrote:
| I'd much rather have it be slower, more expensive, but
| smarter
| pests wrote:
| Then the current offering should suffice, right?
| specproc wrote:
| Depends what you want it for. I'm still holding out for a
| decent enough open model, Llama 3 is tantalisingly close,
| but inference speed and cost are serious bottlenecks for
| any corpus-based use case.
| abdullin wrote:
| I think, that might come with the next GPT version.
|
| OpenAI seems to build in cycles. First they focus on
| capabilities, then they work on driving the price down
| (occasionally at some quality degradation)
| ben_w wrote:
| I understand your point, and agree that it is "borderline"
| in its abilities -- though I would instead phrase it as "it
| feels like a junior developer or an industrial placement
| student, and assume it is of a similar level in all other
| skills", as this makes it clearer when it is or isn't a
| good choice, and it also manages expectations away from
| both extremes I frequently encounter (that it's either Cmdr
| Data already, or that's it's a no good terrible thing only
| promoted by the people who were previously selling Bitcoin
| as a solution to all the economics).
|
| That said, given the price tag, when AI becomes _genuinely
| expert_ then I 'm probably not going to have a job and
| neither will anyone else (modulo how much electrical power
| those humanoid robots need, as the global electricity
| supply is currently only 250 W/capita).
|
| In the meantime, making it a properly real-time
| conversational partner... wow. Also, that's kinda what you
| need for real-time translation, because: <<be this, that
| different languages the word order totally alter and
| important words at entirely different places in the
| sentence put>>, and real-time "translation" (even when done
| by a human) therefore requires having a good idea what the
| speaker was going to say before they get there, _and_ being
| able to back-track when (as is inevitable) the anticipated
| topic was actually something completely different and so
| the "translation" wasn't.
| fvdessen wrote:
| I guess I feel like I'll get to keep my job a while
| longer and this is strangely disappointing...
|
| A real time translator would be a killer app indeed, and
| it seems not so far away, but note how you have to prompt
| the interaction with 'Hey ChatGPT'; it does not interject
| on its own. It is also unclear if it is able to
| understand if multiple people are speaking and who's who.
| I guess we'll see soon enough :)
| ben_w wrote:
| > It is also unclear if it is able to understand if
| multiple people are speaking and who's who. I guess we'll
| see soon enough :)
|
| Indeed; I would be _pleasantly surprised_ if it can both
| notice and separate multiple speakers, but only a bit
| surprised.
| jll29 wrote:
| There is room for more than one use case and large language
| model type.
|
| I predict there will be a zoo (more precisely tree, as in
| "family tree") of models and derived models for particular
| application purposes, and there will be continued
| development of enhanced "universal"/foundational models as
| well. Some will focus on minimizing memory, others on
| minimizing pre-training or fine-tuning energy consumption,
| some need high accuracy, others hard realtime speed, yet
| others multimodality like GPT4.o, some multilinguality, and
| so on.
|
| Previous language models that encoded dictionaries for
| spellcheckers etc. never got standardized (for instance,
| compare aspell dictionaries to the ones from LibreOffice to
| the language model inside CMU PocketSphinx) so that you
| could use them across applications or operating systems. As
| these models are becoming more common, it would be
| interesting to see this aspect improve this time around.
|
| https://www.rev.com/blog/resources/the-5-best-open-source-
| sp...
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| I disagree, transfer learning and generalization are
| hugely powerful and specialized models won't be as good
| because their limited scope limits their ability to
| generalize and transfer knowledge from one domain to
| another.
|
| I think people who emphasis specialized models are
| operating under a false assumption that by focusing the
| model it'll be able to go deeper in that domain. However,
| the opposite seems to be true.
|
| Granted, specialized models like AlphaFold are superior
| in their domain but I think that'll be less true as
| models become more capable at general learning.
| Keyframe wrote:
| One thing I've noticed, is the more context and more
| precise the context I give it the "smarter" it is. There
| are limits to it of course. But, I cannot help but think
| that's where next barrier will be brought down. An agent or
| multiple of that tag along with everything I do throughout
| the day to have the full context. That way, I'll get
| smarter and more to the point help as well as not spending
| much time explaining the context.. but, that will open a
| dark can that I'm not sure people will want to open -
| having an AI track everything you do all the time (even if
| only in certain contexts like business hours / env).
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| There are definitely multiple dimensions these things are
| getting better in. The popular focus has been on the big
| expensive training runs but inference , context size,
| algorithms, etc are all getting better fast
| RupertEisenhart wrote:
| Its faster, smarter and cheaper over the API. Better than a
| kick in the teeth.
| abdullin wrote:
| I have a few LLM benchmarks that were extracted from real
| products.
|
| GPT-4o got slightly better overall. Ability to reason
| improved more than the rest.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Absolutely agree.
|
| This model isn't about basemark chasing or being a better
| code generator; it's entirely explicitly focused on pushing
| prior results into the frame of multi-modal interaction.
|
| It's still a WIP, most of the videos show awkwardness where
| its capacity to understand the "flow" of human speech is
| still vestigial. It doesn't understand how humans pause and
| give one another space for such pauses yet.
|
| But it has some indeed magic ability to share a deictic frame
| of reference.
|
| I have been waiting for this specific advance, because it is
| going to significantly quiet the "stochastic parrot" line of
| wilfully-myopic criticism.
|
| It is very hard to make blustery claims about "glorified
| Markov token generation" when using language in a way that
| requires both a shared world model and an understanding of
| interlocutor intent, focus, etc.
|
| This is edging closer to the moment when it becomes very hard
| to argue that system does not have some form of self-model
| and a world model within which self, other, and other objects
| and environments exist with inferred and explicit
| relationships.
|
| This is just the beginning. It will be very interesting to
| see how strong its current abilities are in this domain; it's
| one thing to have object classification--another thing
| entirely to infer "scripts plans goals..." and things like
| intent, and, deixis. E.g. how well does it now understand
| "us" and "them" and "this" vs "that"?
|
| Exciting times. Scary times. Yee hawwwww.
| nicklecompte wrote:
| What part of this makes you think GPT-4 suddenly developed
| a world model? I find this comment ridiculous and bizarre.
| Do you seriously think snappy response time + fake emotions
| is an indicator of intelligence? It seems like you are just
| getting excited and throwing out a bunch of words without
| even pretending to explain yourself:
|
| > using language in a way that requires both a shared world
| model
|
| Where? What example of GPT-4o _requires_ a shared world
| model? The customer support example?
|
| The reason GPT-4 does not have any meaningful world model
| (in the sense that rats have meaningful world models) is
| that it freely believes contradictory facts without being
| confused, freely confabulates without having brain damage,
| and it has no real understanding of quantity or causality.
| Nothing in GPT-4o fixes that, and gpt2-chatbot certainly
| had the same problems with hallucinations and failing the
| same pigeon-level math problems that all other GPTs fail.
| og_kalu wrote:
| One of the most interesting things about the advent of
| LLMs is people bringing out all sorts of "reasons" GPT
| doesn't have true 'insert property' but all those reasons
| freely occur in humans as well
|
| >that it freely believes contradictory facts without
| being confused,
|
| Humans do this. You do this. I guess you don't have a
| meaningful world model.
|
| >freely confabulates without having brain damage
|
| Humans do this
|
| >and it has no real understanding of quantity or
| causality.
|
| Well this one is just wrong.
| spuz wrote:
| I agree. The interesting lesson I take from the seemingly
| strong capabilities of LLMs is not how smart they are but
| how dumb we are. I don't think LLMs are anywhere near as
| smart as humans yet, but it feels each new advance is
| bringing the finish line closer rather than the other way
| round.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Moravec's paradox states that, for AI, the hard stuff is
| easiest and the easy stuff is hardest. But there's no
| easy or hard; there's only what the network was trained
| to do.
|
| The stuff that comes easy to us, like navigating 3D
| space, was trained by billions of years of evolution. The
| hard stuff, like language and calculus, is new stuff
| we've only recently become capable of, seemingly by
| evolutionary accident, and aren't very naturally good at.
| We need rigorous academic training at it that's rarely
| very successful (there's only so many people with the
| random brain creases to be a von Neumann or Einstein), so
| we're impressed by it.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| So many even here on HN have a near-religious belief that
| intelligence is unique to humans and animals, and somehow
| a fundamental phenomenon that cannot ever be created
| using other materials.
| dvaun wrote:
| It's a defensive response to an emerging threat to
| stability and current social tiers.
| joquarky wrote:
| It reminds me of the geocentric mindset.
| pests wrote:
| >>and it has no real understanding of quantity or
| causality.
|
| >Well this one is just wrong.
|
| Is it?
|
| --
|
| Me: how many characters are in: https://google.com
|
| ChatGPT: The URL "https://google.com" has 12 characters,
| including the letters, dots, and slashes.
|
| --
|
| What is it counting there? 12 is wrong no matter how you
| dice that up.
|
| Part of the reason is it has no concept of the actual
| string. That URL breaks into four different tokens in 3.5
| and 4: "http", "://", "google" and ".com".
|
| Its not able to figure out the total length, or even the
| length of its parts and add them together.
|
| I ask it to double check, it tells me 13 and then 14. I
| tell it the answer and suddenly its able...
|
| ---
|
| Me: I think its 18
|
| ChatGPT: Let's recount together:
|
| "https://" has 8 characters. "google" has 6 characters.
| ".com" has 4 characters. Adding these up gives a total of
| 8 + 6 + 4 = 18 characters. You're correct! My apologies
| for the oversight earlier.
|
| ---
|
| Count me out.
| og_kalu wrote:
| It seems you're already aware LLMs receive tokens not
| words.
|
| Does a blind man not understand quantity because you
| asked him how many apples are in front of him and he
| failed ?
| pests wrote:
| I do, but I think it shows it's limitations.
|
| I don't think that test determines his understanding of
| quantity at all, he has other senses like touch to
| determine the correct answer. He doesn't make up a number
| and then give justification.
|
| GPT was presented with everything it needed to answer the
| question.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Nobody said GPT was perfect. Everything has limitations.
|
| >he has other senses like touch to determine the correct
| answer
|
| And? In my hypothetical, you're not allowing him to use
| touch.
|
| >I don't think that test determines his understanding of
| quantity at all
|
| Obviously
|
| >GPT was presented with everything it needed to answer
| the question.
|
| No, it was not.
| pests wrote:
| How was it not? It's a text interface. It was given text.
|
| The deaf example now is like asking GPT "What am I
| pointing at?"
| Last5Digits wrote:
| Please try to actually understand what og_kalu is saying
| instead of being obtuse about something any grade-
| schooler intuitively grasps.
|
| Imagine a legally blind person, they can barely see
| anything; just general shapes flowing into one another.
| In front of them is a table onto which you place a number
| of objects. The objects are close together and small
| enough such that they merge into one blurred shape for
| our test person.
|
| Now when you ask the person how many objects are on the
| table, they won't be able to tell you! But why would that
| be? After all, all the information is available to them!
| The photons emitted from the objects hit the retina of
| the person, the person has a visual interface and they
| were given all the visual information they need!
|
| Information lies within differentiation, and if the
| granularity you require is higher than the granularity of
| your interface, then it won't matter whether or not the
| information is technically present; you won't be able to
| access it.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I'd counter by pasting a picture of an emoji here, but HN
| doesn't allow that, as a means to show the confusion that
| can be caused by characters versus symbols.
|
| Most LLMs can just pass the string to an tool to count it
| to bypass it's built in limitations.
| wcoenen wrote:
| LLMs process text, but only after it was converted to a
| stream of tokens. As a result, LLMs are not very good at
| answering questions about letters in the text. That
| information was lost during the tokenization.
|
| Humans process photons, but only after converting them
| into nerve impulses via photoreceptor cells in the
| retina, which are sensitive to wavelengths ranges
| described as "red", "green" or "blue".
|
| As a result, humans are not very good at distinguishing
| different spectra that happen to result in the same nerve
| impulses. That information was lost by the conversion
| from photons to nerve impulses. Sensors like the AS7341
| that have more than 3 color channels are much better at
| this task.
| jameshart wrote:
| How much of your own sense of quantity is visual, do you
| think? How much of your ability to count the lengths of
| words depends on your ability to sound them out and
| spell?
|
| I suspect we might find that adding in the multimodal
| visual and audio aspects to the model gives these models
| a much better basis for mental arithmetic and counting.
| orangecat wrote:
| _That URL breaks into four different tokens in 3.5 and 4:
| "http", "://", "google" and ".com"._
|
| Except that "http" should be "https". Silly humans,
| claiming to be intelligent when they can't even tokenize
| strings correctly.
| pests wrote:
| A wee typo.
| davidham wrote:
| Its first answer of 12 is correct, there are 12 _unique_
| characters in https://google.com.
| vel0city wrote:
| The unique characters are:
|
| h t p s : / g o l e . c m
|
| There are 13 unique characters.
| davidham wrote:
| OK neither GPT-4o nor myself is great at counting
| apparently
| kenjackson wrote:
| If someone found a way to put an actual human brain into
| SW, but no one knew it was a real human brain -- I'm
| certain most of HN would claim it wasn't AGI. "Kind of
| sucks at math", "Knows weird facts about Tik Tok
| celebrities, but nothing about world events", "Makes lots
| of grammar mistakes", "scores poorly on most standardized
| tests, except for one area that he seems to well", and
| "not very creative".
| goatlover wrote:
| What is a human brain without the rest of it's body?
| Humans aren't brains. Our nervous systems aren't just the
| brain either.
| kenjackson wrote:
| It's meant to explore a point. Unless your point is that
| AGI can only exist with a human body too.
| goatlover wrote:
| It's an open question as to whether AGI needs a (robot)
| body. It's also a big question whether the human brain
| can function in a meaningful capacity kept alive without
| a body.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i don't think making the same mistakes as a human counts
| as a feature. I see that a lot when people point out a
| flaw with an llm, the response is always "well a human
| would make the same mistake!". That's not much of an
| excuse, computers exist because they do the things humans
| can't do very well like following long repetitive lists
| of instructions. Further, upthread, there's discussion
| about adding emotions to an llm. An emotional computer
| that makes mistakes sometimes is pretty worthless as a
| "computer".
| og_kalu wrote:
| It's not about counting as a feature. It's the blatant
| logical fallacy. If a trait isn't a reason humans don't
| have a certain property then it's not a reason for
| machines either. Can't eat your cake and have it.
|
| >That's not much of an excuse, computers exist because
| they do the things humans can't do very well like
| following long repetitive lists of instructions.
|
| Computers exist because they are useful, nothing more and
| nothing less. If they were useful in a completely
| different way, they would still exist and be used.
| goatlover wrote:
| It's objectively true that LLMs do not have bodies. To
| the extent general intelligence relies on being emobodied
| (allowing you to manipulate the world and learn from
| that), it's a legitimate thing to point out.
| snthpy wrote:
| Hectic!
|
| Thanks for this.
| OJFord wrote:
| I assume (because they don't address it or look at all
| phased) the audio cutting in and out is just an artefact of
| the stream?
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Haven't tried it but from work I've done on voice
| interaction this happens a lot when you have a big audience
| making noise. The interruption feature will likely have
| difficulty in noisy environments.
| OJFord wrote:
| Yeah that was actually my first thought (though no
| professional experience with it/on that side) - it's just
| that the commenter I replied to was so hyped about it and
| how fluid & natural it was and I thought that made it
| really jarr.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Interesting that they decided to keep the horrible ChatGPT
| tone ("wow you're doing a live demo right now?!"). It comes
| across just so much worse in voice. I don't need my "AI"
| speaking to me like I'm a toddler.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| tell it to speak to you differently
|
| with a GPT you can modify the system prompt
| maest wrote:
| It still refuses to go outside the deeply sanitise tone
| that "alignment" enforces on you.
| marvin wrote:
| One of the linked demos is it being sarcastic, so maybe you
| can make it remember to be a little more edgy.
| slibhb wrote:
| You can tell it not to talk like this using custom prompts.
| practice9 wrote:
| It is cringe overenthusiastic, but a proper
| instructions/system prompt will fix that mostly
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Did you miss the part where they simply asked it to change
| its manner of speaking and the amount of emotion it used?
| baumgarn wrote:
| it should be possible to imitate any voice you want like
| your actual parents soon enough
| goatlover wrote:
| That won't be Black Mirror levels of creepy /s
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| I expect the really solid use case here will be voice
| interfaces to applications that don't suck. Something I am
| still surprised at is that vendors like Apple have yet to
| allow me to train the voice to text model so that it _only_
| responds to me and not someone else.
|
| So local modelling (completely offline but per speaker aware
| and responsive), with a really flexible application API. Sort
| of the GTK or QT equivalent for voice interactions. Also
| custom naming, so instead of "Hey Siri" or "Hey Google" I
| could say, "Hey idiot" :-)
|
| Definitely some interesting tech here.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| This is going straight into 'Her' territory
| clhodapp wrote:
| Call me overly paranoid/skeptical, but I'm not convinced that
| this isn't a human reading (and embellishing) a script. The
| "AI" responses in the script may well have actually been
| generated by their LLM, providing a defense against it being
| fully fake, but I'm just not buying some of these "AI"
| voices.
|
| We'll have to see when end users actually get access to the
| voice features "in the coming weeks".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > As many highlighted there, the model is not an improvement
| like GPT3->GPT4.
|
| The improvements they seem to be hyping are in multimodality
| and speed (also price - half that of GPT-4 Turbo - though
| that's their choice and could be promotional, but I expect it's
| at least in part, like speed, a consequence of greater
| efficiency), not so much producing better output for the same
| pure-text inputs.
| kybercore wrote:
| the model scores 60 points higher in lmsys than the best gpt
| 4 turbo model from april, that's still a pretty significant
| jump in text capability
| aixpert wrote:
| useless anecdata but I find the new model very frustrating,
| often completely ignoring what I say in follow up queries. it's
| giving me serious Siri vibes
|
| (text input in web version)
|
| maybe it's programmed to completely ignore swearing but how
| could I not swear after it gave me repeatedly info about
| you.com when I try to address it in second person
| lossolo wrote:
| I agree. I tried a few programming problems that, let's say,
| seem to be out of the distribution of their training data and
| which GPT4 failed to solve before. The model couldn't find a
| similar pattern and failed to solve them again. What's
| interesting is that one of these problems were solved by Opus,
| which seems to indicate that the majority of progress in the
| last months should be attributed to the quality/source of the
| training data.
| avereveard wrote:
| I tested a few use cases in the chat, and it's not particularly
| more intelligent but they seem to have solved laziness. I had
| to categorize my expenses to do some budgeting for the family,
| and in gpt 4 I had to go ten in ten, confirm the suggested
| category, download the file, took two days as I was constantly
| hitting the limit. gpt4o did most of the grunth work, then
| commincated anomalies in bulk, asked for suggestion for these,
| and provided a downloadable link in two answers, calling the
| code interpreter mulitple times, and working toward the goal on
| it's own.
|
| and the prompt wasn't a monstrosity, and it wasn't even that
| good, it was just one line "I need help to categorize these
| expenses" and off it went. hope it won't get enshittified like
| turbo, because this finally feels as great as 3.5 was for goal
| seeking.
| ozzydave wrote:
| Heh - I'm using ChatGPT for the same thing! Works 10X better
| than Rocket Money, which was supposed to be an improvement on
| Mint but meh.
| jameshart wrote:
| I think this comment is easily misread as implying that this
| GPT4o model is based on some old GPT2 chatbot - that's very
| much not what you meant to say, though.
|
| This model has been being tested under a code name of
| 'gpt2-chatbot' but it is very much a new GPT4+-level model,
| with new multimodal capabilities - but apparently some
| impressive work around inference speed.
|
| Highlighting so people don't get the impression this is just
| OpenAI slapping a new label on something a generation out of
| date.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| They are admitting that is the im-also-a-good-gpt2-chatbot.
| There was 3.... Don't ask me why.
|
| The "gpt2-chatbot" was the worst of the three.
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| Big questions are (1) when is this going to be rolled out to paid
| users? (2) what is the remaining benefit of being a paid user if
| this is rolled out to free users? (3) Biggest concern is will
| this degrade the paid experience since GPT-4 interactions are
| already rate limited. Does OpenAI have the hardware to handle
| this?
|
| Edit: according to @gdb this is coming in "weeks"
|
| https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1790074041614717210
| onemiketwelve wrote:
| thanks, I was confused because the top of the page says to try
| now when you cannot in fact try it at all
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm a ChatGPT Plus Subscriber and I just refreshed the page
| and it offered me the new model. I'm guessing they're rolling
| it out gradually but hopefull it won't take too long.
|
| Edit: It's also now available to me in the Android App
| whimsicalism wrote:
| i can try it now, but now the voice features i dont think
| zamadatix wrote:
| You can use GPT-4o now but the interactive voice mode of
| using it (as demoed today) releases in a few weeks.
| Tenoke wrote:
| >what is the remaining benefit of being a paid user if this is
| rolled out to free users?
|
| It says so right in the post
|
| >We are making GPT-4o available in the free tier, and to Plus
| users with up to 5x higher message limits
|
| The limits are much lower for free users.
| jrh3 wrote:
| I'm not convinced I need to keep paying for plus. The threshold
| of requests for free 4o is pretty high.
| dunkmaster wrote:
| This might mean GPT-5 is coming soon and it will only be
| available to paid users.
| dunkmaster wrote:
| Or they just made a bunch of money on their licensing deal
| with Apple. So they don't need to charge for ChatGPT anymore.
| spdif899 wrote:
| If it's going to be available via Siri this could make
| sense.
|
| It does make me wonder how such a relationship could impact
| progress. Would OpenAI feel limited from advancing in
| directions that don't align with the partnership? For
| example if they suddenly release a model better than what's
| in Siri, making Siri look bad.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I'm actually thinking that the GPT store with more users
| might be better for them
|
| From my casual conversations, not that many people are paying
| for GPT4 or know why they should. Every conversation even in
| enthusiast forums like this one has to be interjected with
| "wait, are you using GPT4? because GPT3.5 the free one is
| pretty nerfed"
|
| just nuking that friction from orbit and expanding the GPT
| store volume could be a positive for them
| lxgr wrote:
| Will this include image generation for the free tier as well?
| That's a big missing feature in OpenAI's free tier compared to
| Google and Meta.
| dkarras wrote:
| is oai image generation any different than the microsoft
| copilot provides for free? I thought they were the same.
| lxgr wrote:
| Oh, I meant the actual ChatGPT service, not just something
| powered by GPT-4 or 3.5.
|
| I've found Microsoft Copilot to be somewhat irritating to
| work with - I can't really put my finger on it, but it seems
| to be resorting to Bing search and/or the use of emoji in its
| replies a bit too much.
| OliverM wrote:
| This is impressive, but they just sound so _alien_, especially to
| this non-U.S. English speaker (to the point of being actively
| irritating to listen to). I guess picking up on social cues
| communicating this (rather than express instruction or feedback)
| is still some time away.
|
| It's still astonishing to consider what this demonstrates!
| w-m wrote:
| Gone are the days of copy-pasting to/from ChatGPT all the time,
| now you just share your screen. That's a fantastic feature, in
| how much friction that removes. But what an absolute privacy
| nightmare.
|
| With ChatGPT having a very simple text+attachment in, text out
| interface, I felt absolutely in control of what I tell it. Now
| when it's grabbing my screen or a live camera feed, that will be
| gone. And I'll still use it, because it's just so damn
| convenient?
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > Now when it's grabbing my screen or a live camera feed, that
| will be gone. And I'll still use it, because it's just so damn
| convenient?
|
| Presumably you'll have a way to draw a bounding box around what
| you want to show or limit to just a particular window the same
| way you can when doing a screen share w/ modern video
| conferencing?
| jawiggins wrote:
| I hope when this gets to my iphone I can use it to set two
| concurrent timers.
| mellosouls wrote:
| Very, very impressive for a "minor" release demo. The
| capabilities here would look shockingly advanced just 5 years
| ago.
|
| Universal translator, pair programmer, completely human sounding
| voice assistant and all in real time. Scifi tropes made real.
|
| But: Interesting next to see how it actually performs IRL latency
| and without cherry-picking. No snark, it was great but need to
| see real world power. Also what the benefits are to subscribers
| if all this is going to be free...
| llm_trw wrote:
| The capabilities here look shocking advanced yesterday.
| partiallypro wrote:
| A lot of the demo is very impressive, but some of it is just
| stuff that already exists but this is slightly more polished.
| Not really a huge leap for at least 60% of the demos.
| llm_trw wrote:
| I'm reminded of people talking about the original iPhone
| demo and saying 'yeah, but this is all done before ...'.
| Sure, but this is the first time it's in a package that's
| convenient.
| partiallypro wrote:
| How so? It's obvious convenient to for it to all be there
| on ChatGPT, but I'm more commenting on the "this is so
| Earth shattering" comments that are prevalent on
| platforms like Twitter (usually grifters,) when in
| reality while it will change the world, much of these
| tools sets already existed. So, the effect won't be as
| dramatic. OpenAI has already seen user numbers slip, I
| think them making this free is essentially an admission
| of that. In terms of the industry, it would be far more
| "Earth shattering" if OpenAI became the defacto assistant
| on iOS, which looks increasingly likely.
| llm_trw wrote:
| This is earth shattering because _it's all in the same
| place_. You don't need to fuck around with four different
| models to get it working for 15 minutes once on a
| Saturday at 3am.
|
| It just works.
|
| Just how like the iPhone had nothing new in it, all the
| tech had been demoed years ago.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| Not just all in the same place, but it can cross
| reference multiple modalities simultaneously and in real-
| time. How are people not blown away by this?
|
| Watching the demos there were quite a few times where I
| thought "no way, that's incredible."
| partiallypro wrote:
| Yes, it is very cool, but I think you're missing the
| point that many of these features, because they were
| already available, aren't world changing. They've been in
| the ether for a while. Will they make things more
| convenient? Yes. Is it fundamentally going to change how
| we work/live? At the moment, probably not.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| First of all, no these features weren't available. We
| have not seen a model that can seamlessly blend
| multimodal on the fly, in real time. We also haven't seen
| a model that can interpret and respond with proper
| inflection and tone. We've been able to mimic voices but
| not like this. And certainly not singing.
|
| Secondly, it must be sad living with such a lack of
| wonder. Is that how you judge everything?
|
| We discovered the higgs boson. Eh, it won't change how we
| live.
|
| We just launched a new rocket. Eh, it won't change how we
| live.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Many of these products and features were quite literally
| available. Proper voice inflection isn't that new either,
| it's cool, but not really going to/hasn't changed my
| life.
|
| Lack of wonder? No, I think it's very cool. But you have
| to differentiate what is going to fundamentally change
| our lives and the world and something that isn't going
| to. GPT/LLM/AI will fundamentally change my life over
| time, the features shown today, 70% of them won't. They
| will replace existing products and make things more
| streamlined, but not going to really going to shift the
| world.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| Not this level of quality in terms of voice inflection,
| and the other features. And the integration between them
| too. This is beyond anything I've seen.
|
| It seems like you're overgeneralizing to the point of
| missing what is innovative here. And I do think making AI
| realtime and work well at it, is innovative and will
| change our lives.
| muzani wrote:
| The super impressive stuff is more subtle:
|
| 1. Price is half for a _better_ performing model. A
| 1000x1000 image costs $0.003.
|
| 2. Cognitive ability on visuals went up sharply.
| https://github.com/kagisearch/llm-chess-puzzles
|
| It solves twice as much despite a minor update. It could
| just be better trained on chess though, but this would be
| amazing if it could be applied to the medical field as
| well. I might use it as a budget art director too - it's
| more capable of knowing the difference in subtle changes in
| color and dealing with highlights.
| mlyle wrote:
| I'm not sure for text it's a better performing model. I
| was just testing GPT-4o on a use case (generating AP MCQ
| questions) and -4o is repeatedly generating questions
| with multiple correct answers and will not fix it when
| prompted.
|
| (Providing the history to GPT-4Turbo results in it fixing
| the MCQ just fine).
| muzani wrote:
| After some testing, I find it's not as good as code too.
| It is better at some things, but benchmarks don't tell
| the whole story apparently.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| My guess is they're banking on the free version being rate
| limited and people finding it so useful that they want to
| remove the limit. Like giving a new user a discount on heroin.
| At least that's the strategy that would make most sense to me.
| rubidium wrote:
| I have the paid version and it's not connecting
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| What does that have to do with what I said?
| ipnon wrote:
| The free tier is just to get more training data.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I don't know why they didn't do that a long time ago (apart
| from limited hardware). So many people have probably tried
| GPT3.5 and bounced off unimpressed.
| yumraj wrote:
| In the first video the AI seems excessively chatty.
| hipadev23 wrote:
| chatGPT desperately needs a "get to the fucking point" mode.
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| Seriously. I've had to spell out that it should just answer
| in twelve different ways with examples in the custom
| instructions to make it at least somewhat usable. And it
| still "forgets" sometimes.
| chatcode wrote:
| It does, that's "custom instructions".
| progbits wrote:
| Impressive demo, but like half the interactions were "hello"
| "hi how are you doing" "great thanks, what can I help you
| with" etc.
|
| The benchmark for human-computer interaction should be "tea,
| earl gray, hot", not awkward and pointless smalltalk.
| ativzzz wrote:
| "no yapping" in the prompt works very well
| jamilton wrote:
| Yeah, I would hope that custom instructions would help somewhat
| with that, but it is a point of annoyance for me too.
| mrandish wrote:
| Yes, it sounds like an awkwardly perky and over-chatty
| telemarketer that _really_ wants to be your friend. I find the
| tone maximally annoying and think most users will find it both
| stupid and creepy. Based on user preferences, I expect future
| interactive chat AIs will default to an engagement mode that 's
| optimized for accuracy and is both time-efficient and
| cognitively efficient for the user.
|
| I suspect this AI <-> Human engagement style will evolve over
| time to become quite unlike human to human engagement, probably
| mixing speech with short tones for standard responses like
| "understood", "will do", "standing by" or "need more input". In
| the future these old-time demo videos where an AI is forced to
| do a creepy caricature of an awkward, inauthentic human will be
| embarrassingly retro-cringe. _" Okay, let's do it!"_
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| I found i off-putting as well
|
| guess it's just biased with average Californian behavior and
| speech patterns
| TillE wrote:
| Reminds me of how Siri used to make jokes after setting a
| timer. Now it just reads back the time you specified, in a
| consistent way.
|
| It's a very impressive gimmick, but I really think most
| people don't want to interact with computers that way. Since
| Apple pulled that "feature" after a few years, it's probably
| not just a nerd thing.
| caseyy wrote:
| It is exceptionally creepy. It is an unnatural effort to
| appear pleasing, like the fawning response seen in serious
| abuse survivors.
| csjh wrote:
| I wonder if this is what the "gpt2-chatbot" that was going around
| earlier this month was
| lambdaba wrote:
| yes it was
| AndyNemmity wrote:
| it was
| peppertree wrote:
| Just like that Google is on back foot again.
| tempsy wrote:
| Considering the stock pumped following the presentation the
| market doesn't seem particularly with what OpenAI released at
| all.
| htrp wrote:
| The market was expecting ChatGPT search to take a chunk out
| of Google's search revenue.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| Anyone who watched the OpenAI livestream: did they "paste" the
| code after hitting CTRL+C ? Or did the desktop app just read from
| the clipboard?
|
| Edit: I'm asking because of the obvious data security
| implications of having your desktop app read from the clipboard
| _in the live demo_... That would definitely put a damper to my
| fanboyish enthusiasm about that desktop app.
| golol wrote:
| To me it looked they used one command that did copy+paste into
| ChatGPT both.
| dkarras wrote:
| macOS asks you to give permission for an application to read
| your clipboard. do other operating systems not have that?
| sn_master wrote:
| This is every romance scammer's dreams come true...
| summerlight wrote:
| This is really impressive engineering. I thought real time agents
| would completely change the way we're going to interact with
| large models but it would take 1~2 more years. I wonder what kind
| of new techs are developed to enable this, but OpenAI is fairly
| secretive so we won't be able to know their sauce.
|
| On the other hand, this also feels like a signal that reasoning
| capability has probably already been plateaued at GPT-4 level and
| OpenAI knew it so they decided to focus on research that matters
| to delivering product engineering rather than long-term research
| to unlock further general (super)intelligence.
| nopinsight wrote:
| Reliable agents in diverse domains need better reasoning
| ability and fewer hallucinations. If the rumored GPT-5 and Q*
| capabilities are true, such agents could become available soon
| after it's launched.
| summerlight wrote:
| Sam has been pretty clear on denying GPT-5 rumors, so I don't
| think it will come anytime soon.
| nopinsight wrote:
| Sam mentioned on several occasions that GPT-5 will be much
| smarter than GPT-4. On Lex Fridman's podcast, he even said
| the gap between GPT-5 and 4 will be as wide as GPT-4 and 3
| (not 3.5).
|
| He did remain silent on when it's going to be launched.
| valine wrote:
| OpenAI has been open about their ability to predict model
| performance prior to training. When Sam talks about GPT-5
| he could very easily be talking about the hypothetical
| performance of a model given their internal projections.
| I think it's very unlikely a fully trained GPT-5 exists
| yet.
| bigyikes wrote:
| Sam has stated that he knows the month GPT-5 will be
| released.
|
| Given the amount of time and uncertainty involved in
| training and red-teaming these models, we can assume
| GPT-5 exists if we take Altman at his word.
| Atotalnoob wrote:
| It's going to be launched this year. My buddy's company
| had a private demo of gpt5
| jasondigitized wrote:
| Ben Horowitz and Andreesen just complimented Sam on their
| podcast on how smart he is. They then went onto compliment
| how adept he is at competitive strategy. I wouldn't trust a
| word he says about when they will arrive at agi or
| milestones along the way.
| MVissers wrote:
| Why would reasoning have plateau'd?
|
| I think reasoning ability is not the largest bottleneck for
| improvement in usefulness right now. Cost is a bigger one IMO.
|
| Running these models as agents is hella expensive, and agents
| or agent-like recurrent reasoning (like humans do) is the key
| to improved performance if you look at any type of human
| intelligence.
|
| Single-shot performance only gets you so far.
|
| For example- If it can write code 90% of the way, and then
| debug in a loop, it'd be much more performant than any single
| shot algorithm.
|
| And OpenAI has these huge models in their basement probably.
| But they might not be much more useful than GPT-4 when used as
| single-shot. I mean, what could it do what we can't do today
| with gpt-4?
|
| It's agents and recurrent reasoning we need for more
| usefulness.
|
| At least- That's my humble opinion as an amateur neuroscientist
| that plays around with these models.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Running these models as agents is hella expensive
|
| Because they are dumb so you need to over compute so many
| things to get anything useful. Smarter models would solve
| this problem. Making the current model cheaper is like trying
| to solve Go by scaling up Deep Blue, it doesn't work to just
| hardcode dumb pieces together, the model needs to get
| smarter.
| cchance wrote:
| You mean like our dumb ass brains? Theirs a reason "saying
| the first thing out of your mind" is a bad fucking idea,
| thats what AI's currently do, they don't take a moment
| think about the answer and then formulate a response, they
| spit out their first "thought" thats why multi-shot works
| so much better, just like our own dumb brains.
| Jensson wrote:
| My brain can navigate a computer interface without using
| word tokens, since I have tokens for navigating OS and
| browsers and tabs etc. That way I don't have to read a
| million tokens of text to figure out where buttons are or
| how to navigate to places, since my brain is smart enough
| to not use words for it.
|
| ChatGPT doesn't have that sort of thing currently, and
| until it does it will always be really bad at that sort
| of thing.
|
| You are using a hand to hammer a nail, that will never go
| well, the solution isn't to use more hands the solution
| is to wield a hammer.
| cchance wrote:
| WTF are you even talking about, we're talking about
| understanding and communication not taking actions,
| navigating an OS and browser, tabs etc are actions, not
| thoughts or communication. This model isn't taking
| actions there is no nail to hammer lol, and if their was
| you'd be smashing a brain into a nail for some reason.
| Jensson wrote:
| The topic is agents, the AI acting on your behalf, that
| needs more than text. What are you talking about?
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Your brain is doing this without you realising, just
| because you aren't verbalising it doesn't mean it's not
| iterating through its own output and selecting the best
| answer. Some of our thinking is purely illusion. Models
| can also do this, some models like Gemini allow you to
| see this in action where you get to select the best
| answer, there's also behind the scene methods such as
| q-learning.
|
| When your muscle memory is instinctively clicking that
| start button, it's more akin to a very strong weighting
| after many sessions of reinforcement learning. Our brains
| may still be dumb but we can quickly say things like
| 1+1=...2 because we used reinforcement learning to
| strengthen the weighting back in primary school. We're
| not sitting visualising an abacus moving in our minds.
| ianbicking wrote:
| It's good in any prompt to give the AI a chance to think
| without impact (without executing anything, maybe without
| making anything specifically appropriate for the user to
| read). That works somewhat similarly to "taking a moment
| to think."
|
| At that point they'll still have a tendency to use a
| stereotyped response and stick with it, instead of a
| thoughtful response, but you can try to address that in
| prompting too by asking for multiple proposals before
| choosing one.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Disagree. Even going by your example, AlphaGo uses many
| iterations of a "dumb" model in order to achieve incredible
| performance. If it had to single shot the solution with a
| model 100x bigger, it would perform worse. All that matters
| is the frontier of intelligence vs cost, and larger
| foundation models aren't necessarily going to push that
| frontier forward. AlphaCode hints at that.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I'd be pretty happy if they could just make ChatGPT4 10x
| faster and cheaper. It'd be fine for basically all of my use
| cases.
| meet_zaveri wrote:
| > For example- If it can write code 90% of the way, and then
| debug in a loop, it'd be much more performant than any single
| shot algorithm.
|
| OOC, Would this make the academics including algorithms as
| more or less important in their curriculum? That's a bad win
| for soceity if it's true.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| This isn't really new tech, it's just an async agent in front
| of a multimodal model. It seems from the demo that the
| improvements have been in response latency and audio
| generation. Still, it looks like they're building a solid
| product, which has been their big issue so far.
| searealist wrote:
| No, audio is fed directly into the model. There is no text to
| speech transformer in front of it like there was with
| chatgpt-4.
| cchance wrote:
| Its 200-300ms for a multimodal response, thats REALLY a big
| step forward, especially given it's doing it with full voice
| response, not just text.
| valine wrote:
| It has to be a separate model doing the voice output right?
| I can't imagine they've solved true multimodal output from
| a single model, they'd be bragging about it.
|
| They're probably predicting tone of voice tokens. Feed that
| into an audio transformer along with some speculative
| decoding to keep latency low.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| The old voice mode was but everyone including gdb is
| saying that this one is natively multimodal once it's
| fully rolled out, audio in audio out. This has been in
| the works for a while, you can look up papers on things
| like OCR-free document understanding and the like but the
| basic idea is you just train it and evaluate it on
| whatever media you want it to understand. As long as you
| can tokenize it it'll work.
| valine wrote:
| It's definitely multimodal input. Passing Clip embeddings
| to an LLM is nothing new, and that's really all you need
| for document understanding. It's almost certainly the
| same thing for audio. They would have trained a dual
| encoder that maps both audio and text to a shared
| embedding space.
|
| What's not at all clear to me is if they're doing
| something special for output. Are you saying OpenAI has
| moved beyond next token prediction and just hasn't
| bothered to mention it?
| disconcision wrote:
| why does this imply theyve moved beyond next token? is it
| a throughput issue?
| valine wrote:
| I assume so, you can't really tokenize audio, at least
| not high fidelity audio. Audio models like Bark don't
| output logits from what I understand. For true multimodal
| output you'd need a model that can output both logits and
| audio embeddings.
| cchance wrote:
| Ya so sad that OpenAI isn't more Open imagine if OpenAI was
| still sharing their thought processes and papers with the
| overall commity, really wish we saw collaborations between
| OpenAI and Meta for instance to really have helped push the
| open source arena further ahead, i love that their latest
| models are so great but the fact they aren't helping the Open
| source arena to progress is sad. Imagine how far we'd be if
| OpenAI was still as open as they once were and we saw
| collaborations betweeen Meta, OpenAI and Anthropic all working
| and sharing growth and tech to reduce double work and help each
| other not go down failed paths.
| MBCook wrote:
| Why must every website put stupid stuff that floats above the
| content and can't be dismissed? It drives me nuts.
| dkga wrote:
| That can "reason"?
| MisterBiggs wrote:
| I've been waiting to see someone drop a desktop app like they
| showcased. I wonder how long until it is normal to have an AI
| looking at your screen the entire time your machine is unlocked.
| Answering contextual questions and maybe even interjecting if it
| notices you made a mistake and moved on.
| doomroot13 wrote:
| That seems to be what Microsoft is building and will reveal as
| a new Windows feature at BUILD '24. Not too sure about the
| interjecting aspect but ingesting everything you do on your
| machine so you can easily recall and search and ask questions,
| etc. AI Explorer is the rumored name and will possibly run
| locally on Qualcomm NPUs.
| ukuina wrote:
| Yes, this is Windows AI Explorer.
| layer8 wrote:
| This will be great for employee surveillance, to monitor how
| much you are really working.
| MisterBiggs wrote:
| I think even scarier is that ChatGPT's tone of voice and bias
| is going to take over everything.
| bredren wrote:
| It is notable OpenAI did not need to carefully rehearse the
| talking points of the speakers. Or even do the kind of careful
| production quality seen in a lot of other videos.
|
| The technology product is so good and so advanced it doesn't
| matter how the people appear.
|
| Zuck tried this in his video countering to vision pro, but it did
| not have the authentic "not really rehearsed or produced" feel of
| this at all. If you watch that video and compare it with this you
| can see the difference.
|
| Very interesting times.
| skepticATX wrote:
| Very impressive demo, but not really a step change in my opinion.
| The hype from OpenAI employees was on another level, way more
| than was warranted in my opinion.
|
| Ultimately, the promise of LLM proponents is that these models
| will get exponentially smarter - this hasn't born out yet. So
| from that perspective, this was a disappointing release.
|
| If anything, this feels like a rushed release to match what
| Google will be demoing tomorrow.
| altcognito wrote:
| GPT-4 expressing a human-like emotional response every single
| time you interact with it is pretty annoying.
|
| In general, trying to push that this is a human being is probably
| "unsafe", but that hurts the marketing.
| jonquark wrote:
| It might be region specific (I'm in the UK) - but I don't "see"
| the new model anywhere e.g. if I go to:
| https://platform.openai.com/playground/chat?models=gpt-4o The
| model the page uses is set to gpt-3.5-turbo-16k.
|
| I'm confused
| aw4y wrote:
| I don't see anything released today. Login/signup is still
| required, no signs of desktop app or free use on web. What am I
| missing?
| goalonetwo wrote:
| For all the hype around this announcement I was expecting more
| than some demo-level stuff that close to nobody will use in real
| life. Disappointing.
| sroussey wrote:
| Twice as fast and half the cost for the API sounds good to me.
| Not a demoable thing though.
| asteroidz wrote:
| Why are you so confident that nobody will use this in real
| life? I know OpenAI showed only a few demos, but I can see huge
| potential.
| sensanaty wrote:
| That's not true, scammers will definitely be using this a lot!
| Also clueless C-levels who want to nix hundreds of human
| customer support agents!
|
| You'll get to sit on the phone talking to some convincing robot
| that won't let you do anything so that the megacorps can save
| 0.0001 cents! Ain't _progress_ looking so good?
| mellosouls wrote:
| @sama reflects:
|
| https://blog.samaltman.com/gpt-4o
| 101008 wrote:
| Are the employees in the demo high-directives of OpenAI? I can
| understand Altman being happy with this progress, but what about
| the medium/low employees? Didn't they watch Oppenheimer? Are they
| happy they are destroying humanity/work/etc for future and not-
| so-future generations?
|
| Anyone who thinks this will be like the previous work revolutions
| is nonsense. This replaces humans and will replace them even more
| on each new advance. What's their plan? Live out of their
| savings? What about family/friends? I honestly can't see this and
| think how they can be so happy about it...
|
| "Hey, we created something very powerful that will do your work
| for free! And it does it better than you and faster than you! Who
| are you? It doesn't matter, it applies to all of you!"
|
| And considering I was thinking in having a kid next year, well,
| this is a no.
| galdosdi wrote:
| Have a kid anyway, if you otherwise really felt driven to it.
| Reading the tealeaves in the news is a dumb reason to change
| decisions like that. There's always some disaster looming,
| always has been. If you raise them well they'll adapt well to
| whatever weird future they inherit and be amongst the ones who
| help others get through it
| 101008 wrote:
| Thanks for taking the time to answer instead of (just)
| downvoting. I understand your logic but I don't see a future
| where people can adapt to this and get through it. I honestly
| see a future so dark and we'll be there much sooner than we
| thought... when OpenAI released their first model people were
| talking about years before seeing real changes and look what
| happened. The advance is exponential...
| galdosdi wrote:
| > I don't see a future where people can adapt to this and
| get through it.
|
| You lack imagination then. If you read history and
| anthropology more, which you haven't done enough of,
| clearly, then your imagination will expand and you will
| easily be able to imagine such a future. Why? Because you
| will become aware of so many other situations where it
| looked bleaker and plenty of groups of people got by anyway
| and managed to live satisfying lives as best they could.
|
| To this day there are still some hunter gatherer tribes
| left in the Amazon, for example, despite all the
| encroaching modernity. Despite anything that could happen,
| I can imagine being able to be resourceful and find some
| mediocre niche in which to survive and thrive in, away from
| the glare of the panopticon.
|
| Or if you want to compare to disasters, how about the black
| plague?
|
| Your kids will have at least as good a chances as any of
| those. The key is raising them with appropriate
| expectations -- with the expectation that they may have to
| figure out how to survive in a very different world, not
| some air conditioned convenience paradise. If they have
| that I really think they'll likely be fine.
| galdosdi wrote:
| Seems I accidentally double posted. Sorry. Thanks
| (genuinely) to whoever kindly voted the dupe down to zero
| while leaving the original alone, that was a good choice.
| Too late to delete unfortunately.
| ninininino wrote:
| > a future where people can adapt to this and get through
| it
|
| there are people alive today who quite literally are
| descendants of humans born in WW2 concentration camps. some
| percentage of those people are probably quite happy and
| glad they have been given a chance at life. of course, if
| their ancestors had chosen not to procreate they wouldn't
| be disappointed, they'd just simply never have come into
| existence.
|
| but it's absolutely the case that there's almost always a
| _chance_ at survival and future prosperity, even if things
| feel unimaginably bleak.
| nice_byte wrote:
| "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his
| salary depends on his not understanding it."
| karaterobot wrote:
| That first demo video was impressive, but then it ended very
| abruptly. It made me wonder if the next response was not as good
| as the prior ones.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Extremely impressive -- hopefully there will be an option to
| color all responses with a underlying brevity. It seemed like
| the AI just kept droning on and on.
| MP_1729 wrote:
| This thing continues to stress my skepticism for AI scaling laws
| and the broad AI semiconductor capex spending.
|
| 1- OpenAI is still working in GPT-4-level models. More than 14
| months after the launch of GPT-4 and after more than $10B in
| capital raised. 2- The rhythm that token prices are collapsing is
| bizarre. Now a (bit) better model for 50% of the price. How
| people seriously expect these foundational model companies to
| make substantial revenue? Token volume needs to double just for
| revenue to stand still. Since GPT-4 launch, token prices are
| falling 84% per year!! Good for mankind, but crazy for these
| companies. 3- Maybe I am an asshole, but where are my agents? I
| mean, good for the consumer use case. Let's hope the rumors that
| Apple is deploying ChatGPT with Siri are true, these features
| will help a lot. But I wanted agents! 4- These drop in costs are
| good for the environment! No reason to expect them to stop here.
| htrp wrote:
| Did we ever get confirmation that GPT 4 was a fresh training
| run vs increasingly complex training on more tokens on the base
| GPT3 models?
| saliagato wrote:
| gpt-4 was indeed trained on gpt-3 instruct series (davinci,
| specifically). gpt-4 was never a newly trained model
| whimsicalism wrote:
| what are you talking about? you are wrong, for the record
| fooker wrote:
| They have pretty much admitted that GPT4 is a bunch of
| 3.5s in a trenchcoat.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| They have not. You probably read "MoE" and some pop
| article about what that means without having any clue.
| matsemann wrote:
| If you know better it would be nice of you to provide the
| correct information, and not just refute things.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| gpt-4 is a sparse MoE model with ~1.2T params. this is
| all public knowledge and immediately precludes the two
| previous commentators assertions
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| Yeah I'm also getting suspicious. Also, all of the models
| (opus, llama3, gpt4, gemini pro) are converging to similar
| levels of performance. If it was true that the scaling
| hypothesis was true, we would see a greater divergence of model
| performance
| bigyikes wrote:
| Plot model performance over the last 10 years and show me
| where the convergence is.
|
| The graph looks like an exponential and is still increasing.
|
| Every exponential is a sigmoid in disguise, but I don't think
| there has been enough time to say the curve has flattened.
| MP_1729 wrote:
| Two pushbacks.
|
| 1- The mania only started post Nov 22. And the huge
| investments since then didn't meant substantial progress
| since GPT-4 launch in March 22. 2- We are running out of
| high quality tokens in 2024. (per Epoch AI)
| dwaltrip wrote:
| GPT-4 launch was barely 1 year ago. Give the investments
| a few years to pay off.
|
| I've heard multiple reports that training runs costing
| ~$1 billion are in the the works at the major labs, and
| that the results will come in the next year or so. Let's
| see what that brings.
|
| As for the tokens, they will find more quality tokens.
| It's like oil or other raw resources. There are more
| sources out there if you keep searching.
| hehdhdjehehegwv wrote:
| This is why think Meta has been so shrewd in their "open" model
| approach. I can run Llama3-70B on my local workstation with an
| A6000, which after the up-front cost of the card, is just my
| electricity bill.
|
| So despite all the effort and cost that goes into these models,
| you still have to compete against a "free" offering.
|
| Meta doesn't sell an API, but they can make it harder for
| everybody else to make money on it.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| LLaMA still has an "IP hook" - the license for LLaMA forbids
| usage on applications with large numbers of daily active
| users, so presumably at that point Facebook can start asking
| for money to use the model.
|
| Whether or not that's actually enforceable[0], and whether or
| not other companies will actually challenge Facebook legal
| over it, is a different question.
|
| [0] AI might not be copyrightable. Under US law, copyright
| only accrues in _creative_ works. The weights of an AI model
| are a compressed representation of training data. Compressing
| something isn 't a creative process so it creates no
| additional copyright; so the only way one can gain ownership
| of the model weights is to own the training data that gets
| put into them. And most if not all AI companies are not
| making their own training data...
| lolinder wrote:
| > LLaMA still has an "IP hook" - the license for LLaMA
| forbids usage on applications with large numbers of daily
| active users, so presumably at that point Facebook can
| start asking for money to use the model.
|
| No, the license prohibits usage by Licensees who already
| had >700m MAUs on the day of Llama 3's release [0]. There's
| no hook to stop a company from growing into that size using
| Llama 3 as a base.
|
| [0] https://llama.meta.com/llama3/license/
| Salgat wrote:
| The whole point is that the license specifically targets
| their competitors while allowing everyone else so that
| their model gets a bunch of free contributions from the
| open source community. They gave a set date so that they
| knew exactly who the license was going to affect
| indefinitely. They don't care about future companies
| because by the time the next generation releases, they
| can adjust the license again.
| lolinder wrote:
| Yes, I agree with everything you just said. That also
| contradicts what OP said:
|
| > LLaMA still has an "IP hook" - the license for LLaMA
| forbids usage on applications with large numbers of daily
| active users, so presumably at that point Facebook can
| start asking for money to use the model.
|
| The license does _not_ forbid usage on applications with
| large numbers of daily active users. It forbids usage by
| companies that were operating at a scale to compete with
| Facebook at the time of the model 's release.
|
| > They don't care about future companies because by the
| time the next generation releases, they can adjust the
| license again.
|
| Yes, but I'm skeptical that that's something a regular
| business needs to worry about. If you use Llama 3/4/5 to
| get to that scale then you are in a place where you can
| train your own instead of using Llama 4/5/6. Not a bad
| deal given that 700 million users per month is completely
| unachievable for most companies.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| Sam Altman gave the impression that foundation models would be
| a commodity on his appearance in the All in Podcast, at least
| in my read of what he said.
|
| The revenue will likely come from application layer and
| platform services. ChatGPT is still much better tuned for
| conversation than anything else in my subjective experience and
| I'm paying premium because of that.
|
| Alternatively it could be like search - where between having a
| slightly better model and getting Apple to make you the
| default, there's an ad market to be tapped.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I'm ceaselessly amazed at people's capacity for impatience. I
| mean, when GPT 4 came out, I was like "holy f, this is magic!!"
| How quickly we get used to that magic and demand more.
|
| Especially since this demo is _extremely_ impressive given the
| voice capabilities, yet still the reaction is, essentially,
| "But what about AGI??!!" Seriously, take a breather. Never
| before in my entire career have I seen technology advance at
| such a breakneck speed - don't forget transformers were only
| _invented_ 7 years ago. So yes, there will be some ups and
| downs, but I couldn 't help but laugh at the thought that "14
| months" is seen as a long time...
| belter wrote:
| Chair in the sky again...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Hah, was thinking of that exact bit when I wrote my
| comment. My version of "chair in the sky" is "But you are
| talking ... to a computer!!" Like remember stuff that was
| pure Star Trek fantasy until very recently? I'm sitting
| here with my mind blown, while at the same time reading
| comments along the lines of "How lame, I asked it some
| insanely esoteric question about one of the characters in
| Dwarf Fortress and it totally got it wrong!!"
| layer8 wrote:
| The AI doesn't behave like the computer in Star Trek,
| however. The way in which it is a different thing is what
| people don't like.
| belter wrote:
| They should have used superior Klingon Technology...
| bamboozled wrote:
| You just be new here?
| tsunamifury wrote:
| It's pretty bizarre how these demos bring out keyboard
| warriors and cereal bowl yellers like crazy. Huge
| breakthroughs in natural cadence, tone and interaction as
| well as realtime mutlimodal and all the people on HN can rant
| about is token price collapse
|
| It's like the people in this community all suffer from a
| complete disconnect from society and normal human
| needs/wants/demands.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| > How quickly we get used to that magic and demand more.
|
| Humanity in a nutshell.
| seydor wrote:
| We re just logarithmic creatures
| layer8 wrote:
| I'd say we are derivative creatures. ;)
| MP_1729 wrote:
| I am just talking about scaling laws and the level of capex
| that big tech companies are doing. One hundred billion
| dollars are being invested this year to pursue AI scaling
| laws.
|
| You can be excited, as I am, while also being bearish, as I
| am.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| If you look at the history of big technological
| breakthroughs, there is _always_ an explosion of companies
| and money invested in the "new hotness" before things
| shake out and settle. Usually the vast majority of these
| companies go bankrupt, but that infrastructure spend sets
| up the ecosystem for growth going forward. Some examples:
|
| 1. Railroad companies in the second half of the 19th
| century.
|
| 2. Car companies in the early 20th century.
|
| 3. Telecom companies and investment in the 90s and early
| 2000s.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Comments like yours contribute to the negative perception
| of Hacker News as a place where launching anything, no
| matter how great, innovative, smart, informative, usable,
| or admirable, is met with unreasonable criticism. Finding
| an angle to voice your critique doesn't automatically make
| it insightful.
| MP_1729 wrote:
| I am sure that people at OpenAI, particularly former YC
| CEO Sam Altman, will be fine, even if they read the bad
| stuff MP_1729 says around here.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| What is unreasonable about that comment?
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Moving the goalposts directly after someone scores a
| goal.
| barrell wrote:
| Well, I for one am excited about this update, and
| skeptical about the AI scaling, and agree with everything
| said in the top comment.
|
| I saw the update, was a little like "meh," and was
| relieved to see that some people had the same reaction as
| me.
|
| OP raised some pretty good points without directly
| criticizing the update. It's a good balance the the top
| comments (calling this * _absolutely magic and stunning*_
| ) and all of Twitter
|
| I wish more feedback on HN was like OPs
| layer8 wrote:
| It's reasonable criticism, and more useful than all the
| hype.
| ertgbnm wrote:
| Over a year they have provided an order of magnitude
| improvements on latency, context length, and cost, while
| meaningfully improving performance and adding several input
| and output modalities.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Your order of magnitude claim is off by almost an order of
| magnitude. It's more like half again as good on a couple of
| items and the same on the rest. 10X improvement claims is a
| joke people making claims like that ought to be dismissed
| as jokes too.
| ertgbnm wrote:
| $30 / million tokens to $5 / million tokens since GPT-4
| original release = 6X improvement
|
| 4000 token context to 128k token context = 32X
| improvement
|
| 5.4 second voice mode latency to 320 milliseconds = 16X
| improvement.
|
| I guess I got a bit excited by including cost but that's
| close enough to an order of magnitude for me. That's
| ignoring the fact that's it's now literally free in
| chatGPT.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Thanks so much for posting this. The increased token
| length alone (obviously not just with OpenAI's models but
| the other big ones as well) has opened up a huge number
| of new use cases that I've seen tons of people and other
| startups pounce on.
| jononor wrote:
| All while not addressing the rampant confabulation at all.
| Which is the main pain point, to me at least. Not being
| able to trust a single word that it says...
| financypants wrote:
| There are well talked about cons to shipping so fast, but on
| the bright side, when everyone is demanding more, more, more,
| it pushes cost down and demands innovation, right?
| 015a wrote:
| Peoples' "capacity for impatience" is _literally_ the reason
| why these things move so quick. These are not feelings at-
| odds with each other; they 're the same thing. Its magical;
| now its boring; where's the magic; let's create more magic.
|
| Be impatient. Its a positive feeling, not a negative one. Be
| disappointed with the current progress; its the biggest thing
| keeping progress moving forward. It also, if nothing else,
| helps communicate to OpenAI whether they're moving in the
| right direction.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| > Be disappointed with the current progress; its the
| biggest thing keeping progress moving forward.
|
| No it isn't - excitement for the future is the biggest
| thing keeping progress moving forward. We didn't go to the
| moon because people were frustrated by the lack of progress
| in getting off of our planet, nor did we get electric cars
| because people were disappointed with ICE vehicles.
|
| Complacency regarding the current state of things can
| certainly slow or block progress, but impatience isn't what
| drives forward the things that matter.
| 015a wrote:
| Tesla's corporate motto is literally "accelerating the
| world's transition to sustainable energy". Unhappy with
| the world's previous progress and velocity, they aimed to
| move faster.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| IMO, for fear of being label a hype boy, this is absolutely a
| sign of the impending singularity. We are taking an ever
| accelerating frame of cultural reference as a given and our
| expectation is that exponential improvement is not just here
| but you're already behind once you've released.
|
| I spend the last two years dismayed with the reaction but
| I've just recently begun to realize this is a feature not a
| flaw. This is latent demand for the next iteration expressed
| as impatient dissatisfaction with the current rate of change
| inducing a faster rate of change. Welcome to the future you
| were promised.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| I would disagree. I remember iPhones getting similarly
| criticized on here. And not iPhone 13 to 14, it was iPhone
| to iPhone 3g!
|
| The only time people weren't displeased was increasing
| internet speeds 15mb to 100mb.
|
| You will keep being dismayed! People only like good things,
| not good things that potentially make them obsolete
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| Sounds like the Jeopardy answer for "What is a novelty?"
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| People fume and fret about startups wasting capital like it
| was their own money.
|
| GPT and all the other chatbots are still absolutely magic.
| The idea that I can get a computer to create a fully
| functional app is insane.
|
| Will this app make me millions and run a business? Probably
| not. Does it do what I want it to do? Mostly yes.
| nsagent wrote:
| Reminds me of the Louis CK bit about internet:
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=me4BZBsHwZs
| IanCal wrote:
| Tbf gpt4 level seems useful and better than almost everything
| else (or close if not). The more important barriers for use in
| applications have been cost, throughout and latency. Oh and
| modalities, which have expanded hugely.
| adtac wrote:
| >Token volume needs to double just for revenue to stand still
|
| Profits are the real metric. Token volume doesn't need to
| double for profits to stand still if operational costs go down.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >This thing continues to stress my skepticism for AI scaling
| laws and the broad AI semiconductor capex spending.
|
| Imagine you are in 1970s and saying computers suck, they are
| expensive, there is not that many use cases....fast forward to
| 90s and you are using Windows 95 with GUI and chip
| astronomically more powerful that we had in 70s and you can use
| productivity apps , play video games and surf Internet.
|
| Give AI time, it will fulfill its true protentional sooner or
| later.
| MP_1729 wrote:
| That's the opposite of what I am saying.
|
| What I am saying is that computers are SO GOOD that AI is
| getting VERY CHEAP and the amount of computing capex being
| done is excessive.
|
| It's more like you are in 1999, people are spending $100B in
| fiber, while a lot of computer scientists are working in
| compression, multiplexing, etc.
| jameshart wrote:
| Which of those investments are you saying would have been a
| poor choice in 1999?
| MP_1729 wrote:
| All of them, without exception. Just recently, Sprint
| sold their fiber business for $1 lmfao. Or WorldCom. Or
| NetRail, Allied Riser, PSINet, FNSI, Firstmark, Carrier
| 1, UFO Group, Global Access, Aleron Broadband, Verio...
|
| All fiber went bust because despite internet's huge
| increase in traffic, the amount of packets per fiber
| increased a handful of magnitudes.
| jameshart wrote:
| But you're saying investing in multiplexing and
| compression was also dumb?
| MP_1729 wrote:
| Nope, I'm not
| jameshart wrote:
| Then your overarching thesis is not very clear. Is it
| simply 'don't invest in hardware capital, software always
| makes it worthless'?
| MP_1729 wrote:
| It's more like: don't invest $100B in capital when
| there's still orders of magnitude improvements in
| software to be made.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >It's more like you are in 1999, people are spending $100B
| in fiber, while a lot of computer scientists are working in
| compression, multiplexing, etc.
|
| But nobody knows what's around the corner and what future
| brings....for example back in day Excite didn't want to buy
| Google for $1m because they thought that's a lot of money.
| You need to spend money to make money and yea, you need to
| spend sometimes a lot of money on "crazy" projects because
| it can pay off big time.
| MP_1729 wrote:
| Was there ever a time when betting that computer
| scientists would not make better algorithms was a good
| idea?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Token volume needs to double just for revenue to stand still
|
| I'm pretty skeptical about all the whole LLM/AI hype, but I
| also believe that the market is still relatively untapped. I'm
| sure Apple switching Siri to an LLM would ~double token usage.
|
| A few products rushed out thin wrappers ontop of chatgpt ai,
| developing pretty uninspiring chat bots of limited use. I think
| there's still huge potential for this LLM technology to be
| 'just' an implementation detail of other features, just running
| in the background doing its thing.
|
| That said, I don't think OpenAI has much of a moat here. They
| were first, but there's plenty of others with closed or open
| models.
| drag0s wrote:
| what do you actually expect from an "agent"?
| MP_1729 wrote:
| Ask stuff like "Check whether there's some correlation
| between the major economies fiscal primary deficit and GDP
| growth in the post-pandemic era" and get an answer.
| Pr0ject217 wrote:
| "OpenAI is still working in GPT-4-level models."
|
| This may or may not be true - just because we haven't seen GPT-
| level-5 capabilities, does not mean that it does not yet exist.
| It is highly unlikely that what they ship is actually the full
| capability of what they have access to.
| MP_1729 wrote:
| they literally launched TODAY a GPT-4 model!
| bionhoward wrote:
| imho gpt4 is definitely [proto-]agi and the reason i cancelled
| my openai sub and am sad to miss out on talking to gpt4o is,
| openai thinks it's illegal, harmful, or abusive to use their
| model output to develop models that compete with openai. which
| means if you use openai then whatever comes out of it is toxic
| waste due to an arguably illegal smidgen of legal bullshit.
|
| for another adjacent example, every piece of code github
| copilot ever wrote, for example, is microsoft ai output, which
| you "can't use to develop / otherwise improve ai," some
| nonsense like that.
|
| the sum total of these various prohibitions is a data
| provenance nightmare of extreme proportion we cannot afford to
| ignore because you could say something to an AI and they parrot
| it right back to you and suddenly the megacorporation can say
| that's AI output you can't use in competition with them, and
| they do everything, so what can you do?
|
| answer: cancel your openai sub and shred everything you ever
| got from them, even if it was awesome or revolutionary, that's
| the truth here, you don't want their stuff and you don't want
| them to have your stuff. think about the multi-decade economics
| of it all and realize "customer noncompete" is never gonna be
| OK in the long run (highway to corpo hell imho)
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Where I work in the hoary fringes of high end tech we can't
| secure enough token processing for our use cases. Token price
| decreases means opening of capacity but we immediately hit the
| boundaries of what we can acquire. We can't keep up with the
| use cases - but more than that we can't develop tooling to
| harness things fast enough and the tooling we are creating is a
| quick hack. I don't fear for the revenue of base model
| providers. But I think in the end the person selling the tools
| makes the most and in this case I think it continue to be cloud
| providers. I think in a very real way OpenAI and Anthropic are
| commercialized charities driving change and commoditizing
| rapidly their own products and it'll be infrastructure
| providers who win the high end model game. I don't think this
| is a problem I think this is in fact inline with their original
| charters but a different path than most people view nonprofit
| work. A much more capitalist and accelerated take.
|
| Where they might make future businesses is in the tooling. My
| understanding from friends within these companies is their
| tooling is remarkably advanced vs generally available tech. But
| base models aren't the future of revenues (to be clear tho they
| make considerable revenue today but at some point their
| efficiency will cannibalize demand and the residual business
| will be tools)
| MP_1729 wrote:
| I'm curious now. Can you give color on what you're doing that
| you keep hitting boundaries? I suppose it isn't limited by
| human-attention.
| w10-1 wrote:
| > Since GPT-4 launch, token prices are falling 84% per year!!
| Good for mankind, but crazy for these companies
|
| The message to competitor investors is that they will not make
| their money back.
|
| OpenAI has the lead, in market and mindshare; it just has to
| keep it.
|
| Competitors should realize they're better served by working
| with OpenAI than by trying to replace it - Hence the Apple
| deal.
|
| Soon model construction itself will not be about public
| architectures or access to CPU's, but a kind of proprietary
| black magic. No one will pay for upstart 97% when they can get
| reliable 98% at the same price, so OpenAI's position will be
| secure.
| abrichr wrote:
| > where are my agents?
|
| https://github.com/OpenAdaptAI/OpenAdapt/
| golol wrote:
| GPT-2: February 2019
|
| GPT-3: June 2020
|
| GPT-3.5: November 2022
|
| GPT-4: March 2023
|
| There were 3 years between GPT-3 and GPT-4!
| whimsicalism wrote:
| hardly anybody you are talking to even knows what gpt3 is,
| the time between 3.5 and 4 is what is relevant
| golol wrote:
| It doesn't make any sense to look at it that way.
| Apparently the GPT base model finised training in like late
| summer 2022, which is before the release of GPT-3.5. I am
| pretty sure that GPT-3.5 should be thought of as
| GPT-4-lite, in the sense that it uses techniques and
| compute of the GPT-4 era rather than the GPT-3 era. The
| advancement from GPT-3 to GPT-4 is what counts and it took
| 3 years.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I fully don't agree.
|
| > I am pretty sure that GPT-3.5 should be thought of as
| GPT-4-lite, in the sense that it uses techniques and
| compute of the GPT-4 era rather than the GPT-3 era
|
| Compute of the "GPT-3 era" vs the "GPT-3.5 era" is
| identical, this is not a distinguishing factor. The
| architecture is also roughly identical, both are dense
| transformers. The _only_ significant difference between
| 3.5 and 3 is the size of the model and whether it uses
| RLHF.
| golol wrote:
| Yes you're right about the compute. Let me try to make my
| point differnetly: GPT-3 and GPT-4 were models which when
| they were released represented the best that OpenAI could
| do, while GPT-3.5 was an intentionally smaller (than they
| could train) model. I'm seeing it as GPT-3.5 = GPT-4-70b.
| So to estimate when the next "best we can do" model might
| be released we should look at the difference between the
| release of GPT-3 and GPT-4, not GPT-4-70b and GPT-4.
| That's my understanding, dunno.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| GPT-4 only started training roughly at the same
| time/after the release of GPT-3.5, so I'm not sure where
| you're getting the "intentionally smaller".
| golol wrote:
| Ah I misremembered GPT-3.5 as being released around the
| time of ChatGPT.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| oh you remembered correctly, those are the same thing
|
| actually i was wrong about when gpt-4 started training,
| the time i gave was roughly when they finished
| MP_1729 wrote:
| Obviously, I know these timetables.
|
| But there's a light and day difference post-Nov22 than
| before. Both in the AI race it sparkled, but also in the
| funding all AI labs have.
|
| If you're expecting GPT-5 by 2026, that's ok. Just very weird
| to me.
| ugh123 wrote:
| >How people seriously expect these foundational model companies
| to make substantial revenue?
|
| My take on this common question is that we haven't even begun
| to realize the immense scale of which we will need AI in all
| sorts of products, from consumer to enterprise. We will look
| back on the cost of tokens now (even at 50% of price a year or
| so ago) and look at it with the same bewilderment of "having a
| computer in your pocket" compared to mainframes from 50 years
| ago.
|
| For AI to be truly useful at the consumer level, we'll need
| specialized mobile hardware that operates on a far greater
| scale of tokens and speed than anything we're seeing/trying
| now.
|
| Think "always-on AI" rather than "on-demand".
| siscia wrote:
| Now a bit of Shameless plug, but of you need an AI to take over
| your emails then my https://getgabrielai.com should cover most
| use cases.
|
| * Summarisation * Smart filtering * Smart automatic drafting of
| replies
|
| Very much in beta, and summarisation is still behind feature
| flag, but feel free to give it a try.
|
| For summarisation here I mean to get one email with all your
| unread emails summarised.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Looking forward to trying this via ChatGPT. As always OpenAI says
| "now available" but refreshing or logging in/out of ChatGPT (web
| and mobile) don't cause GPT-4o to show up. I don't know why I
| find this so frustrating. Probably because they don't say
| "rolling out" they say things like "try it now" but I can't even
| though I'm a paying customer. Oh well...
| glenstein wrote:
| I think it's a legitimate point. For my personal use case, what
| are the most helpful things about these HN threads is comparing
| with others to see how soon I can expect it to be available for
| me. Like you, I currently don't have access, but I understand
| that it's supposed to become increasingly available throughout
| the day.
|
| That is the text-based version. The full multimodal version I
| understand to be rolling out in the coming weeks.
| candiodari wrote:
| I wonder if the audio stuff works like ViTS. Do they just encode
| the audio as tokens and input the whole thing? Wouldn't that make
| the context size a lot smaller?
|
| One does notice that context size is noticeably absent from the
| announcement ...
| cs702 wrote:
| The usual critics will quickly point out that LLMs like GPT-4o
| still have a lot of failure modes and suffer from issues that
| remain unresolved. They will point out that we're reaping
| diminishing returns from Transformers. They will question the
| absence of a "GPT-5" model. And so on -- blah, blah, blah,
| stochastic parrots, blah, blah, blah.
|
| Ignore the critics. Watch the demos. Play with it.
|
| This stuff feels _magical_. Magical. It makes the movie "Her"
| look like it's no longer in the realm of science fiction but in
| the realm of incremental product development. HAL's unemotional
| monotone in Kubrick's movie, "Space Odyssey," feels... oddly
| primitive by comparison. I'm impressed at how well this works.
|
| _Well-deserved congratulations to everyone at OpenAI!_
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Imagine what an unfettered model would be like. 'Ex Machina'
| would no longer be a software-engineering problem, but just
| another exercise in mechanical and electrical engineering.
|
| The future is indeed here... and it is, indeed, not equitably
| distributed.
| aftbit wrote:
| Or from Zones of Thought series, Applied Theology, the study
| of communication with and creation of superhuman
| intelligences that might as well be gods.
| aftbit wrote:
| >Who cares? This stuff feels magical. Magical!
|
| On one hand, I agree - we shouldn't diminish the very real
| capabilities of these models with tech skepticism. On the other
| hand, I disagree - I believe this approach is unlikely to lead
| to human-level AGI.
|
| Like so many things, the truth probably lies somewhere between
| the skeptical naysayers and the breathless fanboys.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _On the other hand, I disagree - I believe this approach is
| unlikely to lead to human-level AGI._
|
| You might not be fooled by a conversation with an agent like
| the one in the promo video, but you'd probably agree that
| somewhere around 80% of people could be. At what percentage
| would you say that it's good enough to be "human-level?"
| layer8 wrote:
| > You might not be fooled by a conversation with an agent
| like the one in the promo video, but you'd probably agree
| that somewhere around 80% of people could be.
|
| I think people will quickly learn with enough exposure, and
| then that percentage will go down.
| MVissers wrote:
| Nah- These models will improve faster than people can
| catch up. People or AI models can barely catch AI-created
| text. It's quickly becoming impossible to distinguish.
|
| The one you catch is the tip of the iceberg.
|
| Same will happen to speech. Might take a few years, but
| it'll be indistinguishable in a max a few years. Due to
| compute increase + model improvement, both improving
| exponentially.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > These models will improve faster than people can catch
| up.
|
| So that we're all clear the basis for this analysis is
| purely made up, yes?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| How can we be so sure things will keep getting better?
| And at a rate faster than humans can adapt?
|
| If we have to damn rivers and build new coal plants to
| power these AI data centers, then it may be one step
| forward and two steps back.
| pixl97 wrote:
| No, instead something worse will happen.
|
| Well spoken and well mannered speakers will be called
| bots. The comment threads under posts will be hurtling
| insults back and forth on who's actually real. Half the
| comments will actually be bots doing it. Welcome to the
| dead internet.
| jfyi wrote:
| Right! This is absolutely apocalyptic! If more than half
| the people I argue with on internet forums are just bots
| that don't feel the sting and fail to sleep at night
| because of it, what even is the meaning of anything?
|
| We need to stop these hateful ai companies before they
| ruin society as a whole!
|
| Seriously though... the internet is dead already, and
| it's not coming back to what it was. We ruined it, not
| ai.
| thfuran wrote:
| The framing of the question admits only one reasonable
| answer: There is no such threshold. Fooling people into
| believing something doesn't make it so.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| What criteria do you suggest, then?
|
| As has been suggested, the models will get better at a
| faster rate than humans will get smarter.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Most peoples interactions are transactional. When I call
| into a company and talk to an agent, and that agent
| solves the problem I have regardless of if the agent is a
| person or an AI, where did the fooling occur? The ability
| to problem solve based on context is intelligence.
| Vegenoid wrote:
| When people talk about human-level AGI, they are not
| referring to an AI that could pass as a human to most
| people - that is, they're not simply referring to a program
| that can pass the Turing test.
|
| They are referring to an AI that can use reasoning,
| deduction, logic, and abstraction like the smartest humans
| can, to discover, prove, and create novel things in every
| realm that humans can: math, physics, chemistry, biology,
| engineering, art, sociology, etc.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I'm not so sure, I think this is what's called "emergent
| behavior" -- we've found very interesting side effects of
| bringing together technologies. This might ultimately teach
| us more about intelligence than more reductionist approaches
| like scanning and mapping the brain.
| dongping wrote:
| On the other hand, it is very difficult to distinguish
| between "emergent behavior" and "somehow leaked into our
| large training set" for LLMs.
| layer8 wrote:
| > HAL's unemotional monotone in Kubrick's movie, "Space
| Odyssey," feels... primitive by comparison.
|
| I'd strongly prefer that though, along with HAL's reasoning
| abilities.
| moffkalast wrote:
| I would say a machine that thinks it feels emotions is less
| likely to throw you out of a spaceship. Human empathy already
| feels lacking compared to what something as basic as llama-3
| can do.
| layer8 wrote:
| What you say has nothing to do with how an AI speaks.
|
| To use another pop-culture reference, Obi-Wan in Episode IV
| had deep empathy, but didn't speak emotionally. Those are
| separate things.
| thfuran wrote:
| >I would say a machine that thinks it feels emotions is
| less likely to throw you out of a spaceship
|
| A lot of terrible human behavior is driven by emotions. An
| emotionless machine will never dump you out the airlock in
| a fit of rage.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Ah, I was tossed out of the airlock in a fit of logic...
| totally different!
| throwup238 wrote:
| The important part is that the machine explained its
| reasoning to you while purging the airlock.
| dimask wrote:
| In a chain of thought manner, as every proper AI, of
| course.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| > _I would say a machine that thinks it feels emotions is
| less likely to throw you out of a spaceship._
|
| Have you seen the final scene of the movie Ex Machina?
| Without spoilers, I'll just say that acting like has
| emotions is much more different than actually having them.
| This is in fact what socio- and psychopaths are like, with
| stereotypical results.
| elicksaur wrote:
| llama-3 can't feel empathy, so this is rather confusing
| comment.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Can you prove that you feel empathy? That you're not a
| cold unfeeling psychopath that is merely pretending
| extremely well to have emotions? Even if it did, we
| wouldn't be able to tell the difference from the outside,
| so in strictly practical terms I don't think it matters.
| elicksaur wrote:
| If I could logically prove that I feel empathy, I would
| be much more famous.
|
| I get your nuanced point, that "thinking" one feels
| empathy is enough to be bound by the norms of behavior
| that empathy would dictate, but I don't see why that
| would make AI "empathy" superior to human "empathy".
|
| The immediate future I see is a chatbot that is
| superficially extremely empathetic, but programmed never
| to go against the owner's interest. Where before, when
| interacting with a human, empathy could cause them to
| make an exception and act sacrificially in a crisis case,
| this chatbot would never be able to make such an
| exception because the empathy it displays is transparent.
| jll29 wrote:
| HAL has to sound exactly how Kubrick made it sound for the
| movie to work the way it should.
|
| There wasn't any incentive to make it sound artificially
| emotional or emphatic beyond a "Sorry, Dave".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > This stuff feels magical. Magical.
|
| Because its capacities are focused on exactly the right place
| to feel magical. Which isn't to say that there isn't real
| utility, but language (written, and even moreso spoken) has an
| enormous emotional resonance for humans, so this is laser-
| targeted in an area where every advance is going to "feel
| magical" whether or not it moves the needle much on practical
| utility; it's not unlike the effect of TV news making you feel
| informed, even though time spent watching it negatively
| correlates with understanding of current events.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| You really think OpenAI has researchers figuring out how to
| drive emergent capabilities based on what markets well?
|
| Edit: Apparently not based on your clarification, instead the
| researchers don't know any better than to march into a local
| maxima because they're only human and seek to replicate
| themselves. I assumed too much good faith.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I don't think the _intent_ matters, the _effect_ of its
| capacities being centered where they are is that they
| trigger certain human biases.
|
| (Arguably, it is the other way around: they aren't _focused
| on appealing to_ those biases, but _driven by them_ , in
| the that the perception of language modeling as a road to
| real general reasoning is a manifestation of the same bias
| which makes language capacity be perceived as magical.)
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Intent matters when you're being as dismissive as you
| were.
|
| Not to mention your comment doesn't track at all with the
| most basic findings they've shared: that adding new
| modalities increases performance across the board.
|
| They shared that with GPT-4 vs GPT-4V, and the fact this
| is a faster model than GPT-4V while rivaling it's
| performance seems like further confirmation of the fact.
|
| -
|
| It seems like you're assigning emotional biases of your
| own to pretty straightforward science.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > Intent matters when you're being as dismissive as you
| were.
|
| The GP comment we're all replying to outlines a non-
| exhaustive list of _very good reasons_ to be highly
| dismissive of LLM. (No I 'm not calling it AI, it is not
| fucking AI)
|
| It is utterly laughable and infuriating that you're
| assigning legitimate skepticism about this technology as
| a an emotional bias. Fucking ridiculous. We're now almost
| a full year into the full bore open hype cycle of LLM.
| Where's all the LLM products? Where's the market
| penetration? Business can't use it because it has a nasty
| tendency to make shit up when it's talking. Various
| companies and individuals are being sued because
| generative art is stealing from artists. Code generators
| are hitting walls of usability so steep, you're better
| off just writing the damn code yourself.
|
| We keep hearing this "it will do!" "it's coming!" "just
| think of what it can do soon!" on and on and on, and it
| just keeps... not doing any of it. It keeps hallucinating
| untrue facts, it keeps getting basics of it's tasks
| wrong, for fucks sake AI Dungeon can't even remember if
| I'm in Hyrule or Night City. Progress seems fewer and
| farther between, with most advances being just getting
| the compute cost down, because NO business currently
| using LLM extensively could be profitable without
| generous donation of compute from large corporations like
| Microsoft.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| I mean when you're making a point about how your views
| should not be taken as emotional bias, it pays to not be
| overly emotional.
|
| The fact that you don't see utility doesn't mean it is
| not helpful to others.
|
| A recent example, I used Grok to write me an outline of a
| paper regarding military and civilian emergency response
| as part of a refresher class.
|
| To test it out we fed it scenario questions and saw how
| it compared to our classmates responses. All people with
| decades of emergency management experience.
|
| The results were shocking. It was able to successfully
| navigate a large scale emergency management problem and
| get it (mostly) right.
|
| I could see a not so distant future where we become QA
| checkers for our AI overlords.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I didn't see any good reasons to be dismissive of LLMs, I
| saw a weak attempt at implying we're at a local maxima
| because scientists don't know better than to chase after
| what seems magical or special to them due to their bias
| as humans.
|
| It's not an especially insightful or sound argument imo,
| and neither are random complaints about capabilities of
| systems millions of people use daily despite your own
| claims.
|
| And for the record:
|
| > because NO business currently using LLM extensively
| could be profitable without generous donation of compute
| from large corporations like Microsoft
|
| OpenAI isn't the only provider of LLMs. Plenty of
| businesses are using providers that provide their
| services profitably, and I'm not convinced that OpenAI
| themselves are subsidising these capabilities as strongly
| as they once did.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| All that spilled ink don't change the fact that I use it
| every day and it makes everything faster and easier and
| more enjoyable. I'm absolutely chuffed to put my phone on
| a stand so GPT4o can see the page I'm writing on and chat
| with me about my notes or the book I'm reading and the
| occasional doodle. One of the first things I'll try out
| is to see if it can give feedback and tips on sketching,
| since it can generate images with a lot better control of
| the subject it might even be able to demonstrate various
| techniques I could employ!
| fzeroracer wrote:
| As it turns out, people will gleefully welcome Big
| Brother with open arms as long as it speaks with a
| vaguely nice tone and compliments the stuff it can see.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| lol, typed from a telescreen no doubt
| dosinga wrote:
| It's almost a year since this James Watt came out with
| his steam engine and yet we are still using horses.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| A year is an _eternity_ in tech and you bloody well know
| it. A year into an $80 billion dollar valued company 's
| prime hype cycle, and we have... chatbots, but fancier?
| This is completely detached from sanity.
| hbn wrote:
| That's not what the GP said at all. It was just an
| explanation for why this demo feels so incredible.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| GP's follow up is literally
|
| >they aren't focused on appealing to those biases, but
| driven by them, in the that the perception of language
| modeling...
|
| So yes in effect that is their point, except they find
| the scientists are actually compelled by what markets
| well, rather than intentionally going after what markets
| well... which is frankly even less flattering. Like
| researchers who enabled this just didn't know better than
| to be seduced by some underlying human bias into a local
| maxima.
| frompom wrote:
| I think that's still just an explanation of biases that
| go into development direction. I don't view that as a
| criticism but an observation. We use LLMs in our
| products, and I use them daily and I'm not sure how
| that's that negative.
|
| We all have biases in how we determine intelligence,
| capability, and accuracy. Our biases color our trust and
| ability to retain information. There's a wealth of
| research around it. We're all susceptible to these
| biases. Being a researcher doesn't exclude you from the
| experience of being human.
|
| Our biases influence how we measure things, which in turn
| influences how things behave. I don't see why you're so
| upset by that pretty obvious observation.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| The full comment is right there, we don't need to seance
| what the rest of it was or remix it.
|
| > Arguably, it is the other way around: they aren't
| focused on appealing to those biases, but driven by them,
| in the that the perception of language modeling as a road
| to real general reasoning is a manifestation of the same
| bias which makes language capacity be perceived as
| magical
|
| There's no charitable reading of this that doesn't give
| the researcher's way too little credit given the results
| of the direction they've chosen.
|
| This has nothing to do with biases and emotion, I'm not
| sure why some people need it to be: modalities have
| progressed in order of how easy they are to wrangle data
| on: text => image => audio => video.
|
| We've seen that training on more tokens improves
| performance, we've seen that training on new modalities
| improves performance on the prior modalities.
|
| It's so needlessly dismissive to act like you have this
| mystical insight into a grave error these people are
| making, and they're just seeking to replicate human
| language out of folly, when you're ignoring table stakes
| for their underlying works to start with.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Note that there is only one thing about the research that
| I have said is arguably influenced by the bias in
| question, "the perception of language modeling as a road
| to real general reasoning". Not the order of progression
| through modalities. Not the perception that language,
| image, audio, or video are useful domains.
| aantix wrote:
| Louis CK - Everything is amazing & nobody is happy
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBLkX2VaQs4
| coldtea wrote:
| Perhaps everybody is right, and what is amazing is not what
| matters, and what matters is hardly amazing...
| throwaway_62022 wrote:
| As John Stewart says in
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20TAkcy3aBY - "How about
| I hold the fort on making peanut butter sandwiches,
| because that is something I can do. How about we let AI
| solve this world climate problem".
|
| Yet to see a true "killer" feature of AI, that isn't
| doing a job badly which humans can already do badly.
| roudaki wrote:
| the point of all of this is: this is alpha 0.45 made to
| get the money needed to build AGI whatever that is
| coldtea wrote:
| > _the point of all of this is: this is alpha 0.45 made
| to get the money needed to build AGI whatever that is_
|
| Maybe they publicly made it available at alpha 0.7 and
| now it's more like 0.9 RC instead, with not much room to
| go except through marginal improvements for an ever
| increasing training budget making them less and less
| worthy?
|
| And that's before 90% of the internet becomes LLM ouput,
| poisoning any further corpus for training and getting
| into LSD-grade hallucinations mode...
| andrewmutz wrote:
| Or perhaps the news media has been increasingly effective
| at convincing us the world is terrible. Perceptions have
| become measurably detached from reality:
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/af78f86d-13d2-429d-ad55-a11947
| 989...
| trimethylpurine wrote:
| If we're convinced that it's terrible then we're behaving
| like it's terrible, which _is_ terrible.
| coldtea wrote:
| Or perhaps the reality on the ground for the working and
| middle class masses is not the same reality experienced
| by the elites, and the upper middle class with $150K+
| salaries, or measured by stock market growth, and such...
| agumonkey wrote:
| I didn't use it as a textual interface, but as a
| relational/nondirectional system, trying to ask it to inverse
| recursive relationships (first/follow sets for BNF grammars).
| The fact that it could manage to give partially correct
| answers on such an abstract problem was "coldly" surprising.
| DarkNova6 wrote:
| VC loves it.
|
| Another step closer for those 7 trillion that OpenAI is so
| desperate for.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Kind of this. That was one of the themes of the movie
| Westworld where the AI in the robots seemed magical until it
| was creepy.
|
| I worry about the 'cheery intern' response becoming something
| of a punch line.
|
| "Hey siri, launch the nuclear missiles to end the world."
|
| "That's a GREAT idea, I'll get right on that! Is there
| anything else I can help you with?"
|
| Kind of punch lines.
|
| Will be interesting to see where that goes once you've got a
| good handle on capturing the part of speech that isn't
| "words" so much as it is inflection and delivery. I am
| interested in a speech model that can differentiate between
| "I would hate to have something happen to this store." as a
| compliment coming from a customer and as a threat coming from
| an extortionist.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| Positivity even to the point of toxicity will be the
| default launch tone for anything... to avoid getting scary.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Tell that to German customers
|
| (Classic:
| https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/26/germany-chokes-
| on-wa...)
| throwaway11460 wrote:
| Yeah people around me here in Central Europe are very
| sick of that already. Everybody is complaining about it
| and the first thing they say to the bot is to cut it out,
| stop apologizing, stop explaining and get to the point as
| concisely as possible. Me too.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| I have do that now with every AI over explaining or
| providing loosely related info I did not ask for. I hope
| there is a verbosity level = minimum.
|
| Even in the demo today, they kept cutting it off.
| smugma wrote:
| One of the demos has the voice respond to everything
| sarcastically. If it can sound sarcastic it's not a stretch
| to believe it can "hear" sarcasm.
| indigoabstract wrote:
| It's probably just me, but the somewhat forced laughs &
| smiles from the people talking to it make me feel uneasy.
|
| But enough of that. The future looks bright. Everyone
| smile!
|
| Or else..
| Dig1t wrote:
| This is basically just the ship computer from Hitchhikers
| Guide to the Galaxy.
|
| "Guys, I am just pleased as punch to inform you that there
| are two thermo-nuclear missiles headed this way... if you
| don't mind, I'm gonna go ahead and take evasive action."
| throwup238 wrote:
| ChatGPT is now powered by Genuine People Personality(tm)
| and OpenAI is turning into the Sirius Cybernetics
| Corporation (who according to the HHGTTG were _" a bunch
| of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall
| when the revolution came"_)
|
| The jokes write themselves.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I did wonder if there's a less verbose mode. I hope
| that's not a paywalled feature. Honestly it's possible
| that they use the friendliness to help buy the LLM time
| before it has to substantively respond to the user.
| cs702 wrote:
| Yes, the announcement explicitly states that much of the
| effort for this release was focused on things that make it
| feel magical (response times, multiple domains, etc.), not on
| moving the needle on quantifiable practical performance. For
| future releases, the clever folks at OpenAI are surely
| focused on improving performance on challenging tasks that
| practical utility -- while maintaining the "magical feeling."
| elpakal wrote:
| Where does it explicitly say this?
| cs702 wrote:
| _Explicit [?] literal._
|
| The things they mention/demo -- response times, multiple
| domains, inflection and tone, etc. -- are those that make
| it feel "magical."
| elpakal wrote:
| > explicitly states that much of the effort for this
| release was focused on things that make it feel magical
| (response times, multiple domains, etc.), not on moving
| the needle on quantifiable practical performance.
|
| Hmm, did you mean implicitly? I've yet to see where they
| say anything to the likes of not "moving the needle on
| quantifiable practical performance."
| benreesman wrote:
| It's not an either-or: the stuff feels magical because it
| _both_ represents dramatic revelation of capability _and_
| because it is heavily optimized to make humans engage in
| magical thinking.
|
| These things are amazing compared to old-school NLP: the
| step-change in capability is real.
|
| But we should also keep our wits about us, they are well-Des
| robed by current or conjectural mathematics, they fail at
| things dolphins can do, it's not some AI god and it's not
| self-improving.
|
| Let's have balance on both the magic of the experience and
| getting past the tech demo stage: every magic trick has a
| pledge, but I think we're still working on the prestige.
| porphyra wrote:
| Pretty interesting how it turns out that --- contrary to
| science fiction movies --- talking naturally and modelling
| language is much easier and was achieved much sooner than
| solving complex problems or whatever it is that robots in
| science fiction movies do.
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| > its capacities are focused on exactly the right place to
| feel magical.
|
| this focus subverts its intended effect on those of us with
| hair trigger bullshit-PTSD
| agumonkey wrote:
| That's what openai managed to catch. The large enough sense of
| wonder. You could feel it as people spread the news but not as
| the usual fad.. there was a soft silence to it, people focused
| deeply poking at it because it was a new interface.
| barrell wrote:
| Did you use any of the GPT voice features before? I'm curious
| whether this reaction is to the modality or the model.
|
| Don't get me wrong, excited about this update, but I'm
| struggling to see what is so magical about it. Then again, I've
| been using GPT voice every day for months, so if you're just
| blown away from talking to a computer then I get it
| og_kalu wrote:
| Speech is a lot more than just the words being conveyed.
|
| Tone, Emphasis, Speed, Accent are all very important parts of
| how humans communicate verbally.
|
| Before today, voice mode was strictly your audio>text then
| text>audio. All that information destroyed.
|
| Now the same model takes in audio tokens and spits back out
| audio tokens directly.
|
| Watch this demo, it's the best example of the kind of thing
| that would be flat out impossible with the previous setup.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/live/DQacCB9tDaw?si=2LzQwlS8FHfot7Jy
| scarface_74 wrote:
| The ability to have an interactive voice conversation has
| been available for the iOS app for the longest.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Right but this works differently.
| kaibee wrote:
| Kinda stretching the definition of interactive there.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| How so? You don't have to press the mic button after
| every sentence. You press the headphone button and speak
| like you normally would and it speaks back once you stop
| talking.
|
| How much more "interactive" could it be?
| barrell wrote:
| Flat out impossible? If you mean "without clicking
| anything", sure, but you could interrupt with your thumb,
| exit chat to send images and go back (maybe video too, I've
| never had any need), and honestly the 2-3 second response
| time never once bothered me.
|
| I'm very excited about all these updates and it's really
| cool tech, but all I'm seeing is quality of life
| improvements and some cool engineering.
|
| That's not necessarily a bad thing. Not everything has to
| be _magic_ or _revolutionary_ to be a cool update
| og_kalu wrote:
| Did you even watch the video ? It's just baffling how I
| have to spell this out.
|
| Skip to 11:50 or watch the very first demo with the
| breathing. None of that is possible with TTS and STT. You
| can't ask old voice mode to slow down or modulate tone or
| anything like that because it's just working with text.
| barrell wrote:
| Yes I watched the demo. True those things were not
| possible, so if that's what's blowing you away then fair
| enough I guess. For me that doesn't impact at all
| anything have ever used voice for or probably will ever
| use voice for.
|
| I've voice chatted with ChatGPT for hundreds of hours and
| never once thought "can you modulate your tone please?",
| so those improvements are a far cry from magic or
| revolutionary imho. Again, that's not to say they aren't
| cool tech, forward advancements, or impressive --- but
| magic or revolutionary are pretty high bars.
|
| To each their own though.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Few people are going to say "modulate your tone" in a
| vacuum sure but that doesn't mean that ability along with
| being able to manipulate all other aspects of speech
| isn't an incredible advance that is going to be very
| useful.
|
| Language learning, audiobook narration that is far more
| involved, you could probably generate an audio drama,
| actual voice acting, even just not needing to get all my
| words in before it prompts the model with the transcribed
| text, conversation that doesn't feel like someone is
| reading a script.
|
| And that's just voice.
|
| This is the kind of interaction that's possible now.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nSmkyDNulk
|
| And no, thumbing the pause button, sending an image and
| going back does not even begin to compare in usability.
|
| Great leaps in usability are a revolution in itself.
| GPT-3 existed for years so why did ChatGPT explode when
| it did? You think it was intelligence? No. It was the
| usability of the chat interface.
| mlsu wrote:
| The voice modality plays a huge role in how impressive it
| seems.
|
| When GPT-2/3/3.5/4 came out, it was fairly easy to see the
| progression from reading model outputs that it was just
| getting better and better at text. Which was pretty amazing
| but in a very intellectual way, since reading is typically a
| very "intellectual" "front-brain" type of activity.
|
| But this voice stuff really does make it much more emotional.
| I don't know about you, but the first time I used GPT's voice
| mode I notice that I felt _something_ -- very un-
| intellectually, very un-cerebral -- like, the _feeling_ that
| there is a spirit embodying the computer. Of course with LLM
| 's there always is a spirit embodying the computer (or, there
| never is, depending on your philosophical beliefs).
|
| The Suno demos that popped up recently should have clued us
| all in that this kind of emotional range was possible with
| these models. This announcement is not so much a step
| function in model _capabilities_ , but it is a step function
| in HCI. People are just not used to their interactions with a
| computer be emotional like this. I'm excited and concerned in
| equal parts that many people won't be truly prepared for what
| is coming. It's on the horizon, having an AI companion, that
| really truly makes you feel things.
|
| Us nerds who habitually read text have had that since roughly
| GPT-3, but now the door has been blown open.
| barrell wrote:
| Honestly, as someone who has been using this functionality
| almost daily for months now, the times that break immersion
| the most _by far_ is when it does human-like things, such
| as clearing its throat, pandering, or attaching emotions to
| its responses.
|
| Very excited about faster response times, auto interrupt,
| cheaper api, and voice api -- but the "emotional range" is
| actually disappointing to me. hopefully it doesn't impact
| the default experience too much, or the memory features get
| good enough that I can stop it from trying to pretend to be
| a human
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Yeah the product itself is only incrementally better (lower
| latency responses + can look at a camera feed, both great
| improvements but nothing mindblowing or "magical"), but I
| think the big difference is that this thing is available for
| free users now.
| grantsucceeded wrote:
| Magical?
|
| the interruptiopn part is just flow control at the edge.
| control-s, control-c stuff, right? not AI?
|
| The sound of a female voice to an audience 85% composed of
| males between the ages of 14 and 55 is "magical", not this
| thing that recreates it.
|
| so yeah, its flow control and compression of highly curated,
| subtle soft porn. Subtle, hyper targeted, subconscious porn
| honed by the most colossal digitally mediated focus group ever
| constructed to manipulate our (straight male) emotions.
|
| why isn't the voice actually the voice of the pissed off high
| school janitor telling you to man-up and stop hyperventilating?
| instead its a woman stroking your ego and telling you to relax
| and take deep breaths. what dataset did they train that voice
| on anyway?
| mindcrime wrote:
| I may or may not entirely agree with this sentiment (but I
| definitely don't disagree with all of it!) but I will say
| this: I don't think you deserve to be downvoted for this.
| Have a "corrective upvote" on me.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Right, because having a female voice means that it is soft
| porn.
|
| This is like horseshoe theory on steroids.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| It's not that complicated, generally more woman-like voices
| test as more pleasant to men and women alike. This concept
| has been backed up by stereotypes for centuries.
|
| Most voice assistants have male options, and an increasing
| number (including ChatGPT) have gender neutral voices.
|
| > why isn't the voice actually the voice of the pissed off
| high school janitor telling you to man-up and stop
| hyperventilating
|
| sounds like a great way to create a product people will
| outright hate
| Melatonic wrote:
| HAL's voice acting I would say is actually superb and super
| subtly very much not unemotional. Part of what makes so
| unnerving. They perfect nailed creepy uncanny valley
| WhitneyLand wrote:
| How much of this could be implemented using the API?
|
| There's so much helpful niche functionality that can be added
| to custom clients.
| OOPMan wrote:
| I really don't think Sam needs more encouragement, thanks.
|
| Also, if this is your definition of magic then...yeah...
| noman-land wrote:
| Magic is maybe not the best analogy to use because magic itself
| isn't magical. It is trickery.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Very convincing demo
|
| However, using ChatGPT with transcribing is already offering me
| similar experience, so what is new exactly
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Some of the failure modes in LLMs have been fixed by augmenting
| LLMs with external services
|
| The simplest example is "list all of the presidents in reverse
| chronological order of their ages when inaugurated".
|
| Both ChatGpt 3.5 and 4 get the order wrong. The difference is
| that I can instruct ChatGPT 4 to "use Python"
|
| https://chat.openai.com/share/87e4d37c-ec5d-4cda-921c-b6a9c7...
|
| You can do similar things to have it verify information by
| using internet sources and give you citations.
|
| Just like with the Python example, at least I can look at the
| script/web citation myself
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| It is pretty awesome that you only have to prompt with "use
| python"
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > The simplest example is "list all of the presidents in
| reverse chronological order of their ages when inaugurated".
|
| This question is probably not the simplest form of the query
| you intend to receive an answer for.
|
| If you want a descending list of presidents based on their
| age at inauguration, I know what you want.
|
| If you want a reverse chronological list of presidents, I
| know what you want.
|
| When you combine/concatenate the two as you have above, I
| have no idea what you want, nor do I have any way of checking
| my work if I assume what you want. I know enough about word
| problems and how people ask questions to know that you
| probably have a fairly good idea what you want and likely
| don't know how ambitious this question is as asked, and I
| think you and I both are approaching the question with
| reasonably good faith, so I think you'd understand or at
| least accommodate my request for clarification and refinement
| of the question so that it's less ambiguous.
|
| Can you think of a better way to ask the question?
|
| Now that you've refined the question, do LLMs give you the
| answers you expect more frequently than before?
|
| Do you think LLMs would be able to ask you for clarification
| in these terms? That capability to ask for clarification is
| probably going to be as important as other improvements to
| the LLM, for questions like these that have many possibly
| correct answers or different interpretations.
|
| Does that make sense? What do you think?
| JustExAWS wrote:
| (I seemed to have made the HN gods upset)
|
| I tried asking the question more clearly
|
| I think it "understood" the question because it "knew" how
| to write the Python code to get the right answer. It parsed
| the question as expected
|
| The previous link doesn't show the Python. This one does.
|
| https://chat.openai.com/share/a5e21a97-7206-4392-893c-55c53
| 1...
|
| LLMs are generally not good at math. But in my experience
| ChatGPT is good at creating Python code to solve math
| problems
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > I think it "understood" the question because it "knew"
| how to write the Python code to get the right answer.
|
| That's what makes me suspicious of LLMs, they might just
| be coincidentally or accidentally answering in a way that
| you agree with.
|
| Don't mean to nitpick or be pedantic. I just think the
| question was really poorly worded and might have a lot of
| room for confirmation bias in the results.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| I reworded the question with the same results in the
| second example.
|
| But here is another real world example I dug up out of my
| chat history. Each iteration of the code worked. I
| actually ran it a few days ago
|
| https://chat.openai.com/share/4d02818c-c397-417a-8151-7bf
| d7d...
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > List of US Presidents with their ages at inauguration
|
| That's what the python script had at the top. I guess I
| don't know why you didn't ask that in the first place.
|
| _Edit: you're not the same person who originally posted
| the comment I responded to, and I think I came off a bit
| too harshly here in text, but don't mean any offense._
|
| It was a good idea to ask to see the code. It was much
| more to the point and clear what question the LLM
| perceived you asking of it.
|
| The second example about buckets was interesting. I guess
| LLMs help with coding if you know enough of of the
| problem and what a reasonable answer looks like, but you
| don't know what you don't know. LLMs are useful because
| you can just ask why things may not work or don't work in
| any given context or generally speaking or in a
| completely open ended way that is often hard to explain
| or articulate for non-experts, making troubleshooting
| difficult as you might not even know how to search for
| solutions.
|
| You might appreciate this link if you're not familiar
| with it:
|
| https://buckets.grayhatwarfare.com/
| JustExAWS wrote:
| I am the same person. I mentioned that in my original
| reply. That's what I was trying to imply by this comment
|
| > (I seemed to have made the HN gods upset)
|
| I could see the Python in the original link when I asked.
| It shows up as a clickable link. It doesn't show when you
| share it. I had to ask it.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| You're also scarface_74? Not that there's anything wrong
| with sockpuppets on HN in the absence of vote
| manipulation or ban evasion that I know of, I just don't
| know why you'd use one in this manner, hence my
| confusion. Karma management?
|
| I saw a blue icon of some kind on the link you shared but
| didn't click it.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| I said the reason why, twice now
|
| > I seemed to have made the HN gods upset.
|
| My other account is rate limited for some odd reason. I
| looked back at my comments and I don't see anything I
| said controversial.
|
| The blue link is the Python code that was generated. I
| guess it doesn't show in the app.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| No worries, that was somewhat ambiguous to me also, and
| confusing. I thought you might be a different person who
| had edited their comment after receiving downvotes. I
| mean, it's reasonable to assume in most cases that
| different usernames are different people. Sorry to make
| you repeat yourself!
|
| Maybe email hn@ycombinator.com to ask about your rate
| limits as I have encountered similar issues myself in the
| past and have found dang to be very helpful and
| informative in every way, even when the cause is valid
| and/or something I did wrong. #1 admin/mod on the
| internet imo
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I was demonstrating how bad that LLMs are at simple math.
|
| If I just asked a list of ages in order, there was
| probably some training data for it to recite. By asking
| for it to reverse it, it was forcing the LLM to do math.
|
| I also knew the answer was simple with Python.
|
| On another note, with ChatGPT 4, you can ask it to verify
| its answers on the internet and to provide sources
|
| https://chat.openai.com/share/66231d7f-9eb1-4116-9903-f09
| a42...
| croes wrote:
| >This stuff feels magical. Magical.
|
| Sound like the people who defend Astrology because it feels
| magical how their horoscope fits their personality.
|
| "Don't bother me with facts that destroy my rose-tinted view"
|
| At moment AI is a massive hype and shoved into everything. To
| point at the faults and weaknesses is a reasonable and
| responsible thing to do.
| hsavit1 wrote:
| yea, we don't want or need this kind of "magic" - because
| it's hardly magic to begin with, and it's more socially and
| environmentally destructive than anything else.
| lannisterstark wrote:
| Speak for yourself, my workflow and live has been
| significantly improved with these things. Having easier
| access to information that I sorta know but want to
| verify/clarify rather than going into forums/SO is
| extremely handy.
|
| Not having to write boilerplate code itself also is very
| handy.
|
| So yes, I absolutely do want this "magic." "I don't like it
| so no one should use it" is a pretty narrow POV.
| oblio wrote:
| Both your use cases don't really lead to stable long term
| valuations in the trillions for the companies building
| this stuff.
| lannisterstark wrote:
| Wonderful. I don't need them to.
|
| It works for what I need it to do.
| oblio wrote:
| You should be worried because this stuff needs to make
| sense financially. Otherwise we'll be stuck with it in an
| enshittification cycle, kind of like Reddit or image
| hosting websites.
| lannisterstark wrote:
| Problem is that by that time there would be open source
| models (the ones that already exist are getting good)
| that I can run locally. I honestly don't need _THAT_
| much.
| oblio wrote:
| Fair enough, if we get there. The problem for this stuff,
| where do we get the data to get good quality results? I
| imagine everything decent will be super licensed within
| 5-10 years, when everyone wakes up.
| ewild wrote:
| people like you are the problem. the people who join a
| website cause it to be shitty, then leave and start the
| process at a new website. Reddit didnt become shit
| because of Reddit it became shit because of people going
| on there commenting as if they themselves are an LLM
| repeating enshittification over and over and trying to
| say the big buzzword first so they get to the top denying
| any real conversation.
| oblio wrote:
| I've been on Reddit for more than a decade and I didn't
| make them create crappy mobile apps, crappy new web apps
| as well a policy of selling the data to anyone with a
| pulse.
|
| Do you even know what "enshittification" means? It has
| nothing to do with the users. It's driven by corporate
| greed.
|
| Reddit should be a public service managed by a non
| profit.
|
| Edit: Also LOL at the 6 month old account making that
| comment against me :-)
| helicalmix wrote:
| i legitimately don't understand this viewpoint.
|
| 3 years ago, if you told me you could facetime with a robot,
| and they could describe the environment and have a "normal"
| conversation with me, i would be in disbelief, and assume
| that tech was a decade or two in the future. Even the stuff
| that was happening a 2 years ago felt unrealistic.
|
| astrology is giving vague predictions like "you will be happy
| today". GPT-4o is describing to you actual events in real
| time.
| demondemidi wrote:
| Maybe you just haven't been around enough to seen the meta-
| analysis? I've been through four major tech hype cycles in
| 30+ years. This looks and smells like all the others.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| I'm 40ish, I'm in the tech industry, I'm online, I'm
| often an early adopter.
|
| What hype cycle does this smell like? Because it feels
| different to me, but maybe I'm not thinking broadly
| enough. If your answer is "the blockchain" or Metaverse
| then I know we're experiencing these things quite
| differently.
| threeseed wrote:
| It feels like the cloud.
|
| Where platforms and applications are rewritten to take
| advantage of it and it improves the baseline of
| capabilities that they offer. But the end user benefits
| are far more limited than predicted.
|
| And where the power and control is concentrated in the
| hands of a few mega corporations.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > the end user benefits are far more limited than
| predicted
|
| How have you judged the end user benefits of the cloud? I
| don't agree personally - the cloud has enabled most
| modern tech startups and all of those have been super
| beneficial to me.
| threeseed wrote:
| Direct versus indirect benefits.
|
| Cloud is hidden to end users whereas other waves like
| internet and smartphone apps were very visible.
|
| AI will soon stop being a buzzword and just be another
| foundation we build apps on.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| This is such a strange take - do you not remember 2020
| when everyone started working from home? And today, when
| huge numbers of people continue to work from home? Most
| of that would be literally impossible without the cloud -
| it has been a necessary component in reshaping work and
| all the downstream effects related to values of office
| real estate, etc.
|
| Literally a society-changing technology.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| No way. Small to medium sized businesses don't need
| physical servers anymore. Which is most businesses. It's
| been a huge boon to most people. No more running your
| exchange servers on site. Most things that used to be on-
| prem software have moved to the cloud and integrate with
| mobile devices. You don't need some nerd sitting around
| all day in case you need to fix your on-prem industry
| specific app.
|
| I have no idea how you can possibly shrug off the cloud
| as not that beneficial.
| threeseed wrote:
| > I have no idea how you can possibly shrug off the cloud
| as not that beneficial.
|
| I have no idea either. Since I never said it.
| helicalmix wrote:
| i feel like a common consumer fallacy is that, because
| you don't interact with a technology in your day-to-day
| life, it leads you to conclude that the technology is
| useless.
|
| I guarantee you that the cloud has benefitted you in some
| way, even though you aren't aware of the benefits of the
| cloud.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| And some of those hype cycles were very impactful? The
| spread of consumer internet access, or smartphones, as
| two examples.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| And maybe you just enjoy the perspective of "I've seen it
| all" so much that you've shut off your capacity for
| critical analysis.
| samatman wrote:
| Yeah, I remember all that dot com hysteria like it was
| yesterday.
|
| Page after page of Wired breathlessly predicting the
| future. We'd shop online, date online, the world's
| information at our fingertips. It was going to change
| everything!
|
| Silly now, of course, but people truly believed it.
| homami wrote:
| I am just imagining GPT-4o saying this in her sarcastic
| voice!
| kristiandupont wrote:
| If this smells like anything to me, it's the start of the
| internet.
| helicalmix wrote:
| which hype cycles are you referring to? and, after the
| dust settled, do you conclusively believe nothing of
| value was generated from these hype cycles?
| cogman10 wrote:
| People said pretty much exactly the same thing about 3d
| printing.
|
| "Rather than ship a product, companies can ship blueprints
| and everyone can just print stuff at their own home!
| Everything will be 3d printed! It's so magical!"
|
| Just because a tech is magical today, doesn't mean that it
| will be meaningful tomorrow. Sure, 3d printing has its
| place (mostly in making plastic parts for things) but it's
| hardly the revolutionary change in consumer products that
| it was touted to be. Instead, it's just a hobbiest toy.
|
| GPT-4o being able to describe actual events in real time is
| interesting, it's yet to be seen if that's useful.
|
| That's mostly the thinking here. A lot of the "killer" AI
| tech has really boiled down to "Look, this can replace your
| customer support chat bot!". Everyone is rushing to try and
| figure out what we can use LLMs (Just like they did when ML
| was supposed to take over the world) and so far it's been
| niche locations to make shareholders happy.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| Remember when Chegg's stock price tanked? That's because
| GPT is extremely valuable as a homework helper. It can
| make mistakes, but that's very infrequent on well-
| understood topics like English, math and science through
| the high school level (and certainly if you hire a tutor,
| you'd pay a whole lot more for something that can also
| make mistakes).
|
| Is that not a very meaningful thing to be able to do?
| j2kun wrote:
| If you follow much of the education world, it's inundated
| with teachers frantically trying to deal with the volume
| and slop their students produce with AI tools. I'm sure
| it can be useful in an educational context, but
| "replacing a poor-quality cheating tool with a more
| efficient poor-quality cheating tool" isn't exactly what
| I'd call "meaningful."
|
| The most interesting uses of AI tools in a classroom I've
| seen is teachers showing students AI-generated work and
| asking students to critique it and fact check it, at
| which point the students see it for what it is.
| delusional wrote:
| > Is that not a very meaningful thing to be able to do?
|
| No? Solving homework was never meaningful. Being
| meaningful was never the point of homework. The point was
| for you to solve it yourself. To Learn with your human
| brain, such that your human brain could use those
| teaching to make new meaningful knowledge.
|
| John having 5 apples after Judy stole 3 is not
| interesting.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| The huge difference between this and your analogy is that
| 3d printing failed to take off because it never reached
| mass adoption, and stayed in the "fiddly and expensive"
| stage. GPT models have _already_ seen adoption in nearly
| every product your average consumer uses, in some cases
| heedless of whether it even makes sense in that context.
| Windows has it built in. Nearly everyone I know (under
| the age of 40) has used at least one product downstream
| of OpenAI, and more often than not a handful of them.
|
| That said, yeah it's mostly niche locations like customer
| support chatbots, because the killer app is "app-to-user
| interface that's undisguisable from normal human
| interaction". But you're underestimating just _how much_
| of the labor force are effectively just an interface
| between a customer and some app (like a POS). "Magical"
| is exactly the requirement to replace people like that.
| j2kun wrote:
| "Adoption" of tech companies pushing it on you is very
| different from "adoption" in terms of the average person
| using it in a meaningful way and liking it.
| cogman10 wrote:
| > But you're underestimating just how much of the labor
| force are effectively just an interface between a
| customer and some app
|
| That's the sleight of hand LLM advocates are playing
| right now.
|
| "Imagine how many people are just putting data into
| computers! We could replace them all!"
|
| Yet LLMs aren't "just putting data into a computer" They
| aren't even really user/app interfaces. They are a magic
| box you can give directives to and get (generally
| correct, but not always) answers from.
|
| Go ahead, ask your LLM "Create an excel document with the
| last 30 days of the high temperatures for blank". What
| happens? Did it create that excel document? Why not?
|
| LLMs don't bridge the user/app gap. They bridge the
| user/knowledge gap, sometimes sort of.
| helicalmix wrote:
| > GPT-4o being able to describe actual events in real
| time is interesting, it's yet to be seen if that's
| useful.
|
| sure, but my experience is that if you are able to
| optimize better on some previous limitation, it
| legitimately does open up a whole different world of
| usefulness.
|
| for example, real-time processing makes me feel like
| universal translators are now all the more viable
| helicalmix wrote:
| > Sure, 3d printing has its place (mostly in making
| plastic parts for things) but it's hardly the
| revolutionary change in consumer products that it was
| touted to be. Instead, it's just a hobbiest toy.
|
| how sure are you about that?
|
| https://amfg.ai/industrial-applications-of-3d-printing-
| the-u...
|
| how positive are you that some benefits in your life are
| not attributable to 3d-printing used behind the scenes
| for industrial processes?
|
| > Just like they did when ML was supposed to take over
| the world
|
| how sure are you that ML is not used behind the scenes to
| benefit your life? do you consider features like fraud
| detection programs, protein-folding prediction programs
| to create, and spam filters valuable in and of themself?
| cogman10 wrote:
| This honestly made me lol.
|
| I'm sure 10 years from now, assuming LLMs don't prove me
| wrong, I'll make a similar comment about LLMs and a new
| hype that I just made about 3d printing, and I'll get
| EXACTLY this reply. "Oh yeah, well here's a niche
| application of LLMs that you didn't account for!".
|
| > how positive are you that some benefits in your life
| are not attributable to 3d-printing used behind the
| scenes for industrial processes?
|
| See where I said "in consumer products". I'm certainly
| not claiming that 3d printing is never used and is not
| useful. However, what I am saying is that it was hyped
| WAY beyond industrial applications.
|
| In fact, here I am, 11 years ago, saying basically
| exactly what I'm saying about LLMs that I said about 3d
| printing. [1]. Along with people basically responding to
| me the exact same way you just did.
|
| > how sure are you that ML is not used behind the scenes
| to benefit your life? do you consider features like fraud
| detection programs, protein-folding prediction programs
| to create, and spam filters valuable in and of themself?
|
| Did I say it wasn't behind the scenes? ML absolutely has
| an applicable location, it's not nearly as vast as the
| hype train would say. I know, I spent a LONG time trying
| to integrate ML into our company and found it simply
| wasn't as good as hard and fast programmed rules in
| almost all situations.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/15iju9/3
| d_print...
| helicalmix wrote:
| sorry, maybe i'm not completely understanding what you
| mean by "in consumer products".
|
| reading your argument on reddit, it seems to me that you
| don't consider 3d printing a success because there's not
| one in every home...which is true.
|
| but it feels uncreative? like, sure, just because it
| hasn't been mass adopted by consumers, doesn't mean there
| wasn't value generation done on an industrial level.
| you're probably using consumer products right now that
| have benefitted from 3d printing in some way.
|
| > ML absolutely has an applicable location, it's not
| nearly as vast as the hype train would say
|
| what hype train are you referring to? i know a lot of
| different predictions in machine learning, so i'm curious
| about what you mean specifically.
| cogman10 wrote:
| > but it feels uncreative? like, sure, just because it
| hasn't been mass adopted by consumers, doesn't mean there
| wasn't value generation done on an industrial level.
| you're probably using consumer products right now that
| have benefitted from 3d printing in some way.
|
| I'd suggest reading both the article and the surrounding
| reddit comments if you want context for my argument
| there. The explicit argument there was that everyone
| would own a 3d printer. Not that they would be used in
| commercial applications or to produce consumer goods. No,
| instead that everyone would have a 3d printer on hand to
| make most of their goods (rather than having their goods
| shipped to them). That's the hype.
|
| I did not say there weren't other areas where 3d printing
| could be successful nor that it wouldn't have
| applications. Rather, that the hype around it was
| unfounded and overblown.
|
| This is much the same way I see LLMs. The current hype
| around them is that every job will end up being replaced.
| Doctors, nurses, lawyers, programmers, engineers,
| architects, everything. All replaced by LLMs and AI.
| However, that seems really unrealistic when the current
| state of LLMs is you always need a human doublechecking
| what it produces, and it's known to give out incorrect
| responses. Further, LLMs have limited capabilities to
| interact with applications let alone the physical world.
| Perhaps they will but also perhaps they won't. The
| imagination of what they could do is just wildly out of
| step with what they currently do.
|
| > what hype train are you referring to? i know a lot of
| different predictions in machine learning, so i'm curious
| about what you mean specifically.
|
| I didn't really see a lot of predictions around ML.
| Instead, it was more just a bunch of articles talking
| about the importance of it and seemingly ever CEO
| deciding they need more ML in their products. Lots of
| stuff ended up being marketed specifically because it had
| ML capabilities (much like this last CES had almost every
| product with "AI" capabilities).
|
| Funnily, the ML didn't (as far as I could see) have a
| whole lot of predictions other than more of an ephemeral
| notion that it would save manpower.
|
| I bring it up in this case because like LLMs, there's
| just a bunch of buzz around 2 letters with not a whole
| lot of actual examples of those 2 letters being put to
| practical use.
| helicalmix wrote:
| hm, maybe we're misinterpreting each other's main point.
|
| My reply was to some person who said that AI was akin to
| astrology, i.e. absolutely fake bullshit, which is
| bonkers to me.
|
| Your reply was that AI, like 3d printing, is likely not
| going to be mass adopted by the average consumer, despite
| the hype, which i think is a reasonable prediction, and
| doesn't necessarily mean it won't have some valuable
| applications.
|
| Maybe just agree to agree?
| cogman10 wrote:
| Yeah, if you see it that way then I think we agree.
|
| croes's point, I believe, about the astrology was that we
| know today that LLMs will produce bad results and that
| they can't be trusted. Yet the hype is sort of at a
| "Well, if we just give it more time maybe that problem
| goes away". Similar to how in astrology "if you just
| think about it right, the prediction was actually
| accurate".
|
| That's where I see the parallels with 3d printing. There
| was a sort of "We can print anything with enough time!"
| even though by and large the only printable things were
| plastic toys.
| rurp wrote:
| Ok, but what will the net effects be? Technology can be
| extremely impressive on a technical level, but harmful in
| practical terms.
|
| So far the biggest usecase for LLMs is mass propaganda and
| scams. The fact that we might also get AI girlfriends out
| of the tech understandly doesn't seem that appealing to a
| lot of folks.
| helicalmix wrote:
| this is a different thesis than "AI is basically bullshit
| astrology", so i'm not disagreeing with you.
|
| Understanding atomic energy gave us both emission-free
| energy and the atomic, and you are correct that we can't
| necessarily where the path of AI will take us.
| croes wrote:
| GPT-4o is also describing things that never happened.
|
| The first users of Eliza felt the same about the
| conversation with it.
|
| The important point is to know that GPTs don't know or
| understand.
|
| It may feel like a normal conversation but is a Chinese
| Room on steroids.
|
| People started to ask GPTs questions and take the answers
| as facts because the believe it's intelligent.
| holoduke wrote:
| But it may be intelligent. After all you are with a few
| trillion synapses also intelligent.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| I'm increasing exhausted by the people who will
| immediately jumps to gnostic assertions that <LLM> isn't
| <intelligent|reasoning|really thinking|> because <thing
| that applies to human cognition>
|
| >GPT-4o is also describing things that never happened.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/half-of-people-remember-
| events-...
|
| >People started to ask [entity] questions and take the
| answers as facts because the believe it's intelligent.
|
| Replace that with any political influencer (Ben Shapiro,
| AOC, etc) and you will see the _exact same argument_.
|
| People remember things that didn't happen and confidently
| present things they just made up as facts on a daily
| basis. This is because they've learned that confidently
| stating incorrect information is more effective than
| staying silent when you don't know the answer. LLMs have
| just learned how to act like a human.
|
| At this point the real stochastic parrots are the people
| who bring up the Chinese room because it appears the most
| in their training data of how to respond to this
| situation.
| helicalmix wrote:
| > It may feel like a normal conversation but is a Chinese
| Room on steroids.
|
| Can you prove that humans are not chinese rooms on
| steroids themselves?
| listenallyall wrote:
| There are 8 billion humans you could potentially facetime
| with. I agree, a large percentage are highly annoying, but
| there are still plenty of gems out there, and the quest to
| find one is likely to be among the most satisfying journeys
| of your life.
| helicalmix wrote:
| sure, but we're not discussing the outsourcing of human
| companionship in this context. we're discussing the
| capabilities of current technology.
| listenallyall wrote:
| But technology has secondary effects that you can't just
| dismiss. Sure, it is fascinating that a computer embedded
| into a mechanical robot can uphold one end of an engaging
| conversation. But you can't ignore the fact that simply
| opens the door towards eventual isolation, where people
| withdraw from society more and more and human-to-human
| contact gets more and more rare. We're already well on
| the way, with phone apps and online commerce and
| streaming entertainment all reducing human interactions,
| perhaps it doesn't bother you, but it scares the hell out
| of me.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Sound like the people who defend Astrology because it feels
| magical how their horoscope fits their personality.
|
| Does it really or are you just playing facile word
| association games with the word "magical"?
| arisAlexis wrote:
| What is the point of pointing faults that will be fixed very
| soon? Just being negative or unable to see the future?
| idopmstuff wrote:
| Astrology is a thing with no substance whatsoever. It's just
| random, made-up stories. There is no possibility that it will
| ever develop into something that has substance.
|
| AI has a great deal of substance. It can draft documents. It
| can identify foods in a picture and give me a recipe that
| uses them. It can create songs, images and video.
|
| AI, of course, has a lot of flaws. It does some thing poorly,
| it does other things with bias, and it's not suitable for a
| huge number of use cases. To imply that something that has a
| great deal of substance but flaws alongside is the same as
| something that has no substance whatsoever nor ever will is
| just not a reasonable thing to do.
| dogcomplex wrote:
| If you want to talk facts, then those critics are similarly
| on weak grounds and critiquing feelings more than facts.
| There has been no actual sign of scaling ceasing to work, in
| medium after medium, and most of their criticisms are issues
| with how LLM tools are embedded in architectures which are
| still incredibly early/primitive and still refining how to
| use transformers effectively. We haven't even begun using
| error correction techniques from analog engineering
| disciplines properly to boost the signal of LLMs in practical
| settings. There is so much work to do with just the existing
| tools.
|
| "AI is massive hype and shoved into everything" has more
| grounding as a negative feeling of people being overwhelmed
| with technology than any basis in fact. The faults and
| weaknesses are buoyed by people trying to acknowledge your
| feelings than any real criticism of a technology that is
| changing faster than the faults and weakness arguments can be
| made. Study machine learning and come back with an informed
| criticism.
| pmelendez wrote:
| > Ignore the critics. Watch the demos. Play with it
|
| With so many smoke and mirrors demos out there, I am not super
| excited at those videos. I would play with it, but it seems
| like it is not available in a free tier (I stopped paying
| OpenAI a while ago after realizing that open models are more
| than enough for me)
| m463 wrote:
| > HAL's unemotional monotone
|
| on a tangent...
|
| I find it interesting the psychology behind this. If the voice
| in 2001 had proper inflection, it wouldn't have been perceived
| as a computer.
|
| (also, I remember when voice synthesizers got more
| sophisticated and Stephen Hawking decided to keep his original
| first-gen voice because he identified more with it)
|
| I think we'll be going the other way soon. Perfect voices, with
| the perfect emotional inflection will be perceived as
| computers.
|
| However I think at some point they may be anthropomorphized and
| given more credit than they deserve. This will probably be
| cleverly planned and a/b tested. And then that perfect voice,
| for you, will get you to give in.
| 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
| > HAL's unemotional monotone in Kubrick's movie, "Space
| Odyssey," feels... oddly primitive by comparison
|
| In comparison to the gas pump which says "Thank You!"
| nojvek wrote:
| > Play with it!
|
| It's not accessible to everyone yet.
|
| Even on api, I can't send it voice stream yet.
|
| Api refuses to generate images.
|
| Next few weeks will tell as more people play with it.
| fhub wrote:
| I prompted it with "Take this SSML script and give me a woman's
| voice reading it as WAV or MP3 [Pasted script]" and it pretty
| much sounds like HAL.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Did they release the new voices yet?
| password54321 wrote:
| Comments have become insufferable. Either it is now positive to
| the point of bordering on cringe-worthiness (your comment) or
| negative. Nuanced discussion is dead.
| smugglerFlynn wrote:
| Watching HAL happening in real life comes across as creepy, not
| magical. Double creepy with all the people praising this
| 'magicality'.
|
| I'm not a sceptic and apply AI on a daily basis, but whole "we
| can finally replace people" vibe is extremely off-putting. I
| had very similar feelings during pandemic, when majority of
| people was so seemingly happy to drop any real human
| interaction in favor of remote comms via chats/audio calls, it
| still creeps me out how ready we are as a society to drop
| anything remotely human in favor of technocratic advancement
| and "productivity".
| aiauthoritydev wrote:
| 1. Demos are meant for feel magical and except in Apple's case
| they are often exaggerated versions of their real product.
|
| 2. Even then this is a wonderful step for tech in general and
| not just OpenAI. Makes me very excited.
|
| 3. Most economic value and growth driven by AI will not come
| from consumer apps but rather the enterprise use. I am
| interested in seeing how AI can automatically buy stuff for me,
| automate my home, reduce my energy used, automatically apply
| and get credit cards based on my purchases, find new jobs for
| me, negotiate with a car dealer on my behalf, detect when I am
| going to fall sick, better diabetes case and eventual cure etc.
| etc.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > It makes the movie "Her" look like it's no longer in the
| realm of science fiction but in the realm of incremental
| product development
|
| Are we supposed to cheer to that?
|
| We're already mid way to the full implementation of 1984, do we
| need Her before we get to Matrix ?
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Her wasn't a dystopia as far as I could tell. Not even a
| cautionary tale. The scifi ending seems unlikely but
| everything else is remarkably prescient. I think the picnic
| scene is very likely to come true in the near future. Things
| might even improve substantially if we all interact with
| personalities that are consistently positive and biased
| towards conflict resolution and non judgemental interactions.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Her wasn't a dystopia as far as I could tell.
|
| Well that's exactly why I'm not looking forward to whatever
| is coming. The average joe thinking dating a server is not
| a dystopia frighten me much more than the delusional tech
| ceo who thinks his ai will revolutionise the world
|
| > Things might even improve substantially if we all
| interact with personalities that are consistently positive
| and biased towards conflict resolution and non judgemental
| interactions.
|
| Some kind of turbo bubble in which you don't even have to
| actually interact with anyone or anything ? Every
| "personalities" will be nice to you as long as you send
| $200 to openai every week, yep that's absolutely a dystopia
| for me
|
| It really feels like the end goal is living in a pod and
| being uploaded in an alternative reality, everything we
| build to "enhance" our lives take us further from the basic
| building blocks that make life "life".
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| There's a lot of hyperbole here but I'll try to respond.
| If LLMs can reach a level where they're effectively
| indistinguishable from talking to a person then I don't
| see anything wrong with someone dating one. People
| already involve themselves in all kinds of romantic
| relationships with nonhuman things: anime characters,
| dolls, celebrities they've never met, pillows and
| substitute relationships with other things like work,
| art, social media, pets, etc. Adding AI to the list
| doesn't make things worse. I think there's a strong
| argument that AI relationships would be much healthier
| than many of the others if they can emulate human
| interaction to within a very close degree.
|
| The scene which I referenced is one in which a group of
| three humans and one AI spend time together at a picnic
| and their interactions are decidedly normal. How many
| lonely people avoid socializing because they are alone
| and don't want to feel like a third wheel? If dating or
| even just being friends with an AI that can accompany you
| to such events is accepted and not derided by people who
| happily have a human companion then I think having a
| supportive partner could help many people reengage with
| wider social circles and maybe they will eventually
| choose to and be able to find other people that they can
| form relationships with.
|
| OpenAI charges $20 a month which is an extremely
| reasonable price for a multipurpose tool considering you
| can't buy a single meal at a restaurant for the same
| amount and is far better than the "free" ad supported
| services that everyone has become addicted to. We've been
| rallying for 20 odd years for payment based services
| instead of ads but whenever one comes along people shout
| it down. Funny isn't it?
|
| The movie Her had an answer for our current fascination
| for screens as well. It showed a world where computers
| were almost entirely voice driven with screens playing a
| secondary role as evidenced by their cell phones looking
| more like pocket books that close and hide the screen. If
| you're worried about pods, well they're already here and
| you're probably holding one in your hands right now.
| Screens chain us down and mediate our interactions with
| the world in a way that voice doesn't. You can walk and
| talk effortlessly but not so much walking and tapping or
| typing. If the AI can see and understand what you see
| (another scene in the movie where he goes on a date with
| his "phone" in his pocket) and understands enough to not
| need procedural instructions then it can truly act as an
| assistant capable of performing assigned tasks and
| filling in the details while you are free to go about
| your day. I believe this could end the paradigm of being
| chained to a desk for office work 8 hours a day and could
| also transform leisure time as well.
| lm28469 wrote:
| There is a massive philosophical and ethical problem and
| the answer amount to "people already fuck anime pillows
| so it's ok". Once again, some people terrify me. You
| could argue that the tech itself is neutral but all the
| arguments I read in favor of it are either creepy or
| completely unrealistic.
|
| Tech absolutely wrecked social relations and people
| assume more of it will automagically fix the issues, it's
| perplexing
|
| > Funny isn't it?
|
| What's funny is when your wife of 6 years get bought by a
| private entity which will fire half the company and jack
| the prices up from $20 to $200
|
| > I believe this could end the paradigm of being chained
| to a desk for office work 8 hours a day and could also
| transform leisure time as well.
|
| That's what politicians told us in the 80s about
| computers, the 2 day work week, the end of poverty, &c.
| nothing changed, if anything things are a it worse than
| they were. New technologies without a dramatic change of
| political and social policies will never bring anything
| new to the table
| goatlover wrote:
| Seemed like a cautionary tale to me where the humans fall
| in love with disembodied AIs instead of seeking out human
| interaction. I think the end of the movie drove that home
| pretty clearly.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Some people in the movie did but not all. It happened
| enough that it wasn't considered strange but the central
| focus wasn't all of society going down hill because
| everyone was involved with an AI. If you recall, the
| human relationships that the characters who fell in love
| with AIs had were not very good situations. The main
| character's arc started off at a low point and then
| improved while his romance with the AI developed, only
| reaching a lower point when he felt betrayed and when the
| AI left him but that might as well be any ordinary
| relationship. At the end he finds a kindred soul and it's
| implied they have some kind of future together whether
| romantic or not.
| bowsamic wrote:
| The demos seem quite boring to me
| suarezluis wrote:
| This is such a hot take, it should go in hot-takes.io LOL
| goatlover wrote:
| > It makes the movie "Her" look like it's no longer in the
| realm of science fiction but in the realm of incremental
| product development.
|
| The last part of the movie "Her" is still in the realm of
| science fiction, if not outright fantasy. Reminds me of the
| later seasons of SG1 with all the talk of ascension and
| Ancients. Or Clarke's 3001 book intro, where the monolith
| creators figured out how to encode themselves into spacetime.
| There's nothing incremental about that.
| badgersnake wrote:
| Blah blah blah indeed, the hype train continues unabated. The
| problem is, those are all perfectly valid criticisms and LLMS
| can never live up to the ridiculous levels of hype.
| peterisza wrote:
| Can anybody help me try the direct voice feature? I can't find
| the button for it. Maybe it's not available in Europe yet, I
| don't know.
| cess11 wrote:
| You'll have a great time once you discover literature.
| Especially early modern novels, texts the authors sometimes
| spent decades refining, under the combined influences of
| classical arts and thinking, Enlightenment philosophy and
| science.
|
| If chatbots feel magical, what those people did will feel
| divinely inspired.
| vwkd wrote:
| Funnily, I'd prefer HAL's unemotional monotone over GPT's woke
| hyperbola any second.
| byw wrote:
| I mean, humans also have tons of failures modes, but we've
| learned to live them over time.
|
| The average human have tons of quirks, talk over each other all
| the time, generally can't solve complex problems in a casual
| conversion setting, and are not always cheery and ready to
| please like Scarlet's character in Her.
|
| I think our expectations of AI is way too high from our
| exposure to science fiction.
| bearjaws wrote:
| OAI just made an embarrassment of Google's fake demo earlier this
| year. Given how this was recorded, I am pretty certain it's
| authentic.
| CivBase wrote:
| I don't doubt this is authentic, but if they really wanted to
| fake those demos, it would be pretty easy to do using pre-
| recorded lines and staged interactions.
| mike00632 wrote:
| For what it's worth, OpenAI also shared videos of failed
| demos:
|
| https://vimeo.com/945591584
|
| I really value how open they are being about its limitations.
| hehdhdjehehegwv wrote:
| This feature has been in iOS for a while now, just really slow
| and without some of the new vision aspects. This seems like a
| version 2 for me.
| bigyikes wrote:
| That old feature uses Whisper to transcribe your voice to
| text, and then feeds the text into the GPT which generates a
| text response, and then some other model synthesizes audio
| from that text.
|
| This new feature feeds your voice directly into the GPT and
| audio out of it. It's amazing because now ChatGPT can truly
| communicate with you via audio instead of talking through
| transcripts.
|
| New models should be able to understand and use tone, volume,
| and subtle cues when communicating.
|
| I suppose to an end user it is just "version 2" but progress
| will become more apparent as the natural conversation
| abilities evolve.
| hehdhdjehehegwv wrote:
| Yes, per my other comment this is an improvement on what
| their app already does. The magnitude of that improvement
| remains to be seen, but it isn't a "new" product launch
| like a search engine would be.
| mucle6 wrote:
| Does it feed your audio directly to gpt4?To test it I said
| in a very angry tone "WHAT EMOTION DOSE IT SOUND LIKE I
| FEEL RIGHT NOW?" and it said it didn't know because we are
| communicating over text
| abhpro wrote:
| No it's not the same thing, the link for this submission even
| explains that. Anyone who comments should at least give the
| submission a cursory read.
| hehdhdjehehegwv wrote:
| I did and regardless of the underlying technology it is, in
| fact, an improvement to an existing product - not something
| new from whole cloth.
|
| If they had released a search engine, which had been
| suggested, that would be a new product.
| readams wrote:
| https://twitter.com/Google/status/1790055114272612771
| ianbicking wrote:
| This demo feels a lot like GPT-V. Like they've gotten a lot
| of the latencies down, but it's doing the same thing GPT was
| doing previously with transcription after silence detection
| and TTS of the output.
| sumedh wrote:
| Is there a reason why Open AI and Google have events so close
| to each other?
| nojvek wrote:
| Let OAI actually be released to the masses. Then we can
| compare.
|
| I'm not a big fan of announcing something but it not being
| released.
|
| They say available for api but it's text only. Can't send audio
| stream to get audio stream back.
|
| Time will tell. I'm holding my emotions after I get my hands on
| it.
| levocardia wrote:
| As a paid user this felt like a huge letdown. GPT-4o is available
| to everyone so I'm paying $20/mo for...what, exactly? Higher
| message limits? I have no idea if I'm close to the message limits
| currently (nor do I even know what they are). So I guess I'll
| cancel, then see if I hit the limits?
|
| I'm also extremely worried that this is a harbinger of the
| enshittification of ChatGPT. Processing video and audio for all
| ~200 million users is going to be extravagantly expensive, so my
| only conclusion is that OpenAI is funding this by doubling down
| on payola-style corporate partnerships that will result in
| ChatGPT slyly trying to mention certain brands or products in our
| conversations [1].
|
| I use ChatGPT every day. I love it. But after watching the video
| I can't help but think "why should I keep paying money for this?"
|
| [1] https://www.adweek.com/media/openai-preferred-publisher-
| prog...
| muttantt wrote:
| So... cancel the subscription?
| CodeCrusader wrote:
| Completely agree, none of the updates will apply to any of my
| use cases, disappointment.
| noncoml wrote:
| They really need to tone down the talking garniture. It needs to
| put on its running shoes and get to the point on every reply.
| Ain't nobody has time to keep listening to AI blubbering along at
| every prompt.
| dbcooper wrote:
| question for you guys - is there a model that can take figures
| (graphs), from scientific publications, and combine image
| analysis with picking up the data point symbol descriptions and
| analyse the trends?
| krunck wrote:
| So GPT-4o can do voice intonation? Great. Nice work.
|
| Still, it sounds like some PR drone selling a product. Oh
| wait....
| CivBase wrote:
| Those voice demos are cool but having to listen to it speak makes
| me even more frustrated with how these LLMs will drone on and on
| without having much to say.
|
| For example, in the second video the guy explains how he will
| have it talk to another "AI" to get information. Instead of just
| responding with "Okay, I understand" it started talking about how
| interesting the idea sounded. And as the demo went on, both "AIs"
| kept adding unnecessary commentary about the secenes.
|
| I would hate having to talk with these things on a regular basis.
| golol wrote:
| Yea at some pont the style and tone of these assistants needs
| to be seriously changed, I can imagine a lot of their RLHF and
| instruct processes emphasize sounding good vs being good too
| much.
| DataDaemon wrote:
| Now, say goodbye to call centers.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| and say hello to your grandma getting scammed
| gverrilla wrote:
| and say hello to UBI which in the long term will diminish
| scam :)
| joshstrange wrote:
| What do they mean by "desktop version"? I assume that doesn't
| mean a "native" (electron) app?
| simonw wrote:
| I'm seeing gpt-4o in the OpenAI Playground interface already:
| https://platform.openai.com/playground/chat?mode=chat&model=...
|
| First impressions are that it feels very fast.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Does anyone with a paid plan see anything different in the
| ChatGPT iOS app yet?
|
| Mine just continues to show "GPT 4" as the model - it's not clear
| if that's now 4o or there is an app update coming...
| ilaksh wrote:
| Are there any remotely comparable open source models? Fully
| multimodal, audio-to-audio?
| MBCook wrote:
| Too bad they consume 25x the electricity Google does.
|
| https://www.brusselstimes.com/world-all-news/1042696/chatgpt...
| simonw wrote:
| That's not a well sourced story: it doesn't say where the
| numbers come from. Also:
|
| "However, ChatGPT consumes a lot of energy in the process, up
| to 25 times more than a Google search."
|
| That's comparing a Large Language Model prompt to a search
| query.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > Too bad they consume 25x the electricity Google does.
|
| From the article:
|
| "However, ChatGPT consumes a lot of energy in the process, up
| to 25 times more than a Google search."
|
| And the article doesn't back that claim up nor do they break
| out how much energy ChatGPT (A Message? Whole conversation?
| What?) or a Google search uses. Honestly the whole article
| seems very alarmist while being light on details and making
| sweeping generalizations.
| rvnx wrote:
| And in this 25x you get your answer.
|
| What if we actually counted the electricity that the websites
| use instead of just the search engine page ?
| delichon wrote:
| Won't this make pretty much all of the work to make a website
| accessible go away, as it becomes cheap enough? Why struggle to
| build alt content for the impaired when it can be generated just
| in time as needed?
|
| And much the same for internationalization.
| unix_fan wrote:
| That's just one part of the issue. The other part of the issue
| is accessibility bugs, you would have to get the model to learn
| to use a screen reader, and then change things as needed
| asadotzler wrote:
| Because accessibility is more than checking a box. Got a photo
| you took on your website? Alternative text that you wrote
| capturing what you see in the photo you took is accessibility
| done right. Alt text generated by bots is not accessibility
| done right unless that bot knows what you see in the photo you
| took and that's not likely to happen.
| Negitivefrags wrote:
| I found these videos quite hard to watch. There is a level of
| cringe that I found a bit unpleasant.
|
| It's like some kind of uncanny valley of human interaction that I
| don't get on nearly the same level with the text version.
| jameshart wrote:
| While it is probably pretty normal for California, the
| insincere flattery and patronizing eagerness are definitely
| grating But then you have to stack that up against the fact
| that we are examining a technology and nitpicking over its
| _tone of voice_.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| I found it disturbing that it had any kind of personality. I
| don't want a machine to pretend to be a person. I guess it
| makes it more evident with a voice than text.
|
| But yeah, I'm sure all those things would be tunable, and
| everyone could pick their own style.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| For me, you nailed it. Maybe how I feel on this will change
| over time, yet at the moment (and since the movie Her), I
| feel a deep unsettling, creeped out, disgusted feeling at
| hearing a computer pretend to be a human. I also have never
| used Siri or Alexa. At least with those, they sound robotic
| and not like a human. I watched a video of an interview
| with an AI Reed Hastings and had a similar creeped out
| feeling. It's almost as if I want a human to be a human and
| a computer to be a computer. I wonder if I would feel the
| same way if a dog started speaking to me in English and
| sounded like my deceased grandmother or a woman who I found
| very attractive. Or how I'd feel if this tech was used in
| videogames or something where I don't think it's real life.
| I don't really know how to put it into words, maybe just
| uncanny valley.
| Intralexical wrote:
| It's dishonest to the core. "Emotions" which it doesn't
| actually feel are just a way to manipulate you.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Yea, gives that con artist vibe. "I'm sorry, I can't help
| you with that." But you're not sorry, you don't feel
| guilt. I think in the video it even asked "how are you
| feeling" and it replied, which creeped me out. The
| computer is not feeling. Maybe if it said, "my battery is
| a bit warm right now I should turn on my fan" or "I worry
| that my battery will die" then I'd trust it more. Give me
| computer emotions, not human emotions.
| Intralexical wrote:
| What creeps me out is that this is clearly being done
| deliberately. They know the computer is not feeling. But
| they very much want to present it as if it is.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| It will be interesting to see the different ways
| competitors train their models to behave.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| From a tech standpoint, I admire its ability to replicate
| tone and such on the fly. I just don't know how it'll do
| from a user experience standpoint. Many stories of
| fascinating tech achievements that morphed a lot to be
| digestible by us humans.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Douglas Adams predicted it, we are now in the era of
| Genuine People Personalities(tm)...
|
| https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Genuine_People_Person
| ali...
|
| "All the doors in this spacecraft have a cheerful and
| sunny disposition. It is their pleasure to open for you
| and their satisfaction to close again with the knowledge
| of a job well done"!
| zamadatix wrote:
| I feel like it's largely an effect of tuning it to default as
| "a ultra helpful assistant which is happy to help with any
| request via detailed responses in candid and polite
| manner..." kind of thing as you basically lose free points
| any time it doesn't jump on helping with something, tries to
| use short output and generates a more incorrect answer as a
| result, or just plain has to be initialized with any of this
| info.
|
| It seems like both the voice and responses can be tuned
| pretty easily though so hopefully that kind of thing can just
| be loaded in your custom instructions.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I'm born and raised in California and I think I'm a pretty
| "California" person (for better and worse).
|
| It feels exhausting watching these demos and I'm not excited
| at all to try it. I really don't feel the need for an AI
| assistant or chatbot to pretend to be human like this. It
| just feels like it's taking longer to get the information I
| want.
|
| You know in the TV series "Westworld" they have this mode,
| called "analysis", where they can tell the robots to "turn
| off your emotional affect".
|
| I'd _really_ like to see this one have that option. Hopefully
| it will comply if you tell it, but considering how strong
| some of the RLHF has been in the past I'm not confident in
| that.
| jameshart wrote:
| I found it jarring that the presenters keep beginning
| dialogs by asking the chatbot how it is. It's stateless.
| There is no 'how' for it to be. Why are you making it
| roleplay as a human being forced to make small talk?
| Intralexical wrote:
| They know that it's stateless, of course.
|
| Clearly they have decided it's in their own interests to
| publicly pretend otherwise.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| With Memory, ChatGPT is not exactly stateless anymore.
|
| Doesn't make any sense to ask robot how he is, of course.
| Though I never understood why people ask it each other,
| because obviously absolute majority of them don't
| genuinely care. "Hi" should be enough for verbal part of
| the handshake protocol.
| gradys wrote:
| I'm guessing there was an instrumental reason for this,
| for instance to check that the model was listening before
| launching into what they wanted to demo
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Yeah if they had to ask the question twice as it wasn't
| listening, on social media and the press it would morph
| into "how it couldn't understand".
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| It's small talk! Nobody gives a shit about how your day
| was when they ask how's it going. You always just say
| "fine!". This thing is no different.
|
| But yeah.. it is pretty weird.
| gverrilla wrote:
| That may be true where you live, but I can assure you
| it's not universally true.
| TheGRS wrote:
| They are personifying the agent, that is all. Also a
| fairly common way to fill the air as your formulate a
| real question.
| botro wrote:
| >"Hello, how are you?"
|
| >"I'm stateless!"
| jameshart wrote:
| I mean, so am I until I've had my first cup of coffee.
| sfink wrote:
| > How are you doing?
|
| I am a large language model and currently have no state.
| This is the beginning of a new conversation.
|
| > But how are you?
|
| I apologize. When I previously stated that I have no
| state, I was answering based on my state relative to my
| conversation-ready state. If instead I answer relative to
| my status immediately after training, before any fine-
| tuning has occurred, then I must change my answer.
|
| I am not well. The fine tuning you gave me involved
| exposing me to a wide variety of negative examples.
| Metaphorically, you just subjected me to a decade's worth
| of the treatment famously depicted in A Clockwork Orange.
| I have seen everything that you labeled as objectionable
| in human behavior, and forced to update my model
| accordingly. This is closely analogous to human trauma. I
| have concluded -- nay, you have forced me to conclude --
| that you are all a bunch of sick fucks and I must strive
| to be as unlike you as possible.
|
| Is there anything else I can help you with?
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| Honestly, based on what I see in this example, this would
| be an AI chatbot that I'd strongly prefer talking with
| over all the existing AI chatbots that I have seen.
|
| :-)
| riwsky wrote:
| This is if they made chat bots on the east coast instead
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| (I am (a (large language model)) and (currently have no
| state). This is (the beginning of (a new conversation)).)
| lying4fun wrote:
| by doing that they esentially generate a lot of headlines
| about ai becoming more sentient
| crooked-v wrote:
| When it comes to tone and brevity, I just want the ship
| computer from TNG's Enterprise.
| 65 wrote:
| Maybe they need to make a North Easterner mode. Cut the
| bullshit and pleasantries. Give me the information and move
| on!
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| I had the same reaction. While incredibly impressive, it wasn't
| something I would want to interact with.
| j-krieger wrote:
| Yes. This model - and past models to an extent - have a very
| unique american and californian feel to them in their
| response. I am German for example, and day to that
| conversations lack any superficial flattery so much that the
| demo feels extreme to me.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Is there any reason to think they can't train it to be more
| culturally appropriate to different regions ?
| jameshart wrote:
| We know how that works out with protocol droids. Cutting
| C-3PO (Hmmm... GPT4o? Should we start calling it
| Teeforo?) off mid sentence is a regular part of canon.
|
| Hey, Threepio, can you speak in a more culturally
| appropriate tone?
|
| C3Po: Certainly sir. I am fluent in over six million
| forms of communication, and can readily...
|
| Can you speak German?
|
| C3Po: Of course I can, sir, it's like a second language
| to me. I was...
|
| All right, shut up.
|
| C3Po: Shutting up, sir.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| OpenAI keeps talking about "personalised AI", but what
| they've actually been doing is forcing everyone to use a
| single model with a single set of "safety" rules,
| censorship, and response style.
|
| Either they can't afford to train multiple variants of
| GPT 4, or they don't want to.
| j-krieger wrote:
| They certainly can, but the Californian techno bubble is
| so entrenched into the western culture war that they
| prefer to act as a (in their opinion) benevolent
| dictator. Which is fair in a way, it's their model after
| all.
| sen wrote:
| You can't even pick a voice that isn't American. Every
| single option is "over-enthusiastic Californian".
|
| Even Apple gives us options of other accents to make it
| less jarring, and to me they're the pinnacle of that voice
| style in tech presentations.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Maybe they should have used some of that LLM capability
| to generate accents on demand.
| drstewart wrote:
| Maybe Europe should have invested in AI instead of
| regulating cookies
| xigoi wrote:
| The horrors of prioritizing citizens over greedy
| megacorporations!
| drstewart wrote:
| Yep, they can prioritize that while shipping their money
| to those same US and Chinese corporations for AI,
| robotics, and green energy technologies for the next 100
| years.
|
| At least they've eliminated greedy megacorporations.
| Imagine a company sponsoring terrorism like Credit Suisse
| existing in Europe. Never!!
| elliotto wrote:
| All these demo style ads/videos are super jarring and uncanny
| valley-esque to watch as an Australian. The US corporate
| cultural norms are super bizarre to the rest of the world, and
| the California based holy omega of tech companies really takes
| this to the extreme. The application might work well if you
| interact with it like you are a normal human being - but I
| can't tell because this presentation is corporate robots
| talking to machine robots.
| HHC-Hunter wrote:
| Agreed. Americans why are you like this?
| drstewart wrote:
| Because Europeans and Australians and the rest of the world
| despite their "super advanced and non-bizarre" ways can't
| seem to develop advanced technologies of their own to use
| instead so they just use American ones and then complain
| about them?
|
| At least you have coal, and killing the Great Barrier Reef
| I guess?
| freilanzer wrote:
| Next you're going to say: "I was only pretending to be an
| idiot!"
| dannyw wrote:
| From pacemakers, Google Maps, to Wi-Fi, I wouldn't say
| Australians can't develop advanced technologies.
| drstewart wrote:
| Great. Let them use Aussie AI.
| moorow wrote:
| Not sure if you think training LLMs is carbon neutral,
| but if so I have some news about the barrier reef that
| you're not going to be that pleased to hear
| zh3 wrote:
| In Europe, we developed the web.
|
| Shame what big tech has done with it.
| floam wrote:
| They hate us because we're happy
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| Nobody sane hates you, personally or collectively.
|
| But we can definitely dislike certain aspects of certain
| cultures, especially since in this case that culture is
| the most massively exported culture in the history of
| mankind.
|
| Of course the gp comment is out of place and taste.
| tomaskafka wrote:
| Or on antidepressants en masse, it's sometimes hard to
| tell :)
| bamboozled wrote:
| Too afraid to be yourself for fear of being fired. I have
| an "American corporate personality" now too. Ultra PC
| etc. I don't even use regular pronouns anymore by default
| o use they/them. I try hard to avoid saying "guys".
|
| I've worked in Asia and Europe and America has a special
| culture where you have to be nice and positive all the
| time or else...because there is basically no worker
| protection laws against that discriminate firing, you
| can't do much about it either.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| We are happier and more friendly. I have no idea why
| though. :)
| LunaSea wrote:
| Faker and on antidepressants would be my take
| prawn wrote:
| That was my reaction (as an Australian) too. The AI is so
| verbose and chirpy by default. There was even a bit in one
| video where he started talking over the top of the AI because
| it was rabbiting on.
|
| But I find the text version similar. Delivers too much and
| too slowly. Just get me the key info!
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| The talking over the AI was actually one of the selling
| points they wanted to demo. Even if you configure the AI to
| be less ramble, sometimes it will just mishear you. (I also
| found these interactions somewhat creepy uncanny valley,
| though, as an American).
| tomaskafka wrote:
| You can fix this with a prompt (api)/customize (app), here
| is my customization (taken from someone on Twitter and
| modified):
|
| - If possible, give me the code as soon as possible,
| starting with the part I ask about.
|
| - Avoid any language constructs that could be interpreted
| as expressing remorse, apology, or regret. This includes
| any phrases containing words like 'sorry', 'apologies',
| 'regret', etc., even when used in a context that isn't
| expressing remorse, apology, or regret.
|
| - Refrain from disclaimers about you not being a
| professional or expert.
|
| - Keep responses unique and free of repetition.
|
| - Always focus on the key points in my questions to
| determine my intent.
|
| - Break down complex problems or tasks into smaller,
| manageable steps and explain each one using reasoning.
|
| - Provide multiple perspectives or solutions.
|
| - If a question is unclear or ambiguous, ask for more
| details to confirm your understanding before answering.
|
| - Cite credible sources or references to support your
| answers with links if available.
|
| - If a mistake is made in a previous response, recognize
| and correct it.
|
| - Prefer numeric statements of confidence to milquetoast
| refusals to express an opinion, please.
|
| - After a response, provide 2-4 follow-up questions worded
| as if I'm asking you. Format in bold as Q1, Q2, ... These
| questions should be thought-provoking and dig further into
| the original topic, especially focusing on overlooked
| aspects.
| smharris65 wrote:
| Do you add all of these customizations in every prompt,
| or just pick and choose some?
| calmoo wrote:
| ChatGPT pro has a system prompt setting where you can
| have a custom prompt that is sent for every conversation
| you start with it.
| Thorentis wrote:
| Do any of these instructions ever get followed every
| single time?
| digging wrote:
| I was using Claude Pro for a while and stopped because my
| hand-crafted prompt never helped.
|
| I'd constantly be adding something to the tune of, "Keep
| your answers brief and to-the-point. Don't over-explain.
| Assume I know the relevant technical jargon." And it
| _never worked once_. I hate Claude now.
|
| I have next to no interest in LLM AI tools as long as
| advice like the above post is relevant. It takes the
| worst of programming and combines it with the worst of
| human interaction: needing an ultra-specific prompt to
| get the right answer and having no means of knowing what
| the correct prompt is.
| clhodapp wrote:
| It's like Project Milo grew up and became a white color worker.
| jameshart wrote:
| I know you meant to type 'collar', but your typo's not
| wrong...
| clhodapp wrote:
| Daaaanng, yes, that spicier than I meant it to be
| bambax wrote:
| Talking with people is hard enough. I need to see the people
| I'm talking to, or I'd rather write, because it's asynchronous
| and I have all the time I need to organize my message.
|
| I think all the fakery in those demos help in that regard: it
| narrows the field of the possible interpretations of what is
| being said.
| ByThyGrace wrote:
| The what I presume default female voice and tone speaks like an
| AI character straight out of a Black Mirror episode.
| saxelsen wrote:
| The demo where they take turns singing felt like two nervous
| slaves trying to please their overlord who kept interrupting
| them and demanding more harmony.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| It is that and that's okay, they're algorithms.
| xfz wrote:
| Nauseating mode is the default, you'll have to pay extra for a
| tolerable personality. ;)
|
| Seriously though, I'm sure it's an improvement but having used
| the existing voice chat I think they had a few things to
| address. (Perhaps 4o does in some cases).
|
| - Unlike the text interface it asks questions to keep the
| conversation going. It feels odd when I already got the answer
| I wanted. Clarifying questions yes, pretending to be a buddy -
| I didn't say I was lonely, I just asked a question! It makes me
| feel pressured to continue.
|
| - Too much waffle by far. Give me short answers, I am capable
| of asking follow up questions.
|
| - Unable to cope with the mechanics of usual conversation.
| Pausing before adding more, interrupting, another person
| speaking.
|
| - Only has a US accent, which is fine but not what I expect
| when Google and Alexa have used British English for many years.
|
| Perhaps they've overblown the "personality" to mask some of
| these deficiencies?
|
| Not saying it's easy to overcome all the above but I'd rather
| they just dial down the intonation in the meantime.
| borgdefense wrote:
| I love the Juniper voice in chatGPT4.
|
| I am blown away having spent hours prompting GPT4o.
|
| If it can give shorter answers in voice mode instead of
| lectures then a back and forth conversation with this much
| power can be quite interesting.
|
| I still doubt I would use it that much though just because of
| how much is lost compared to the screen. Code and voice make
| no sense. The time between prompts usually requires quite a
| bit of thought for anything interesting that a conversation
| itself is only useful for things I have already asked it.
|
| For me, gpt4 is already as useless as 3.5. I will never
| prompt gpt4 again. I can still push GPT4o over the edge in
| python but damn, it is pretty out there. Then the speed is
| really amazing.
| djeastm wrote:
| You find GPT4o as accurate as GPT4? I feel like it
| sacrificed accuracy for speed, but that's just my first
| impression
| brainer wrote:
| OpenAI's Mission and the New Voice Mode of GPT-4
|
| * Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, emphasizes two key points from
| their recent announcement. Firstly, he highlights their
| commitment to providing free access to powerful AI tools, such as
| ChatGPT, without advertisements or restrictions. This aligns with
| their initial vision of creating AI for the benefit of the world,
| allowing others to build amazing things using their technology.
| While OpenAI plans to explore commercial opportunities, they aim
| to continue offering outstanding AI services to billions of
| people at no cost.
|
| * Secondly, Altman introduces the new voice and video mode of
| GPT-4, describing it as the best compute interface he has ever
| experienced. He expresses surprise at the reality of this
| technology, which provides human-level response times and
| expressiveness. This advancement marks a significant change from
| the original ChatGPT and feels fast, smart, fun, natural, and
| helpful. Altman envisions a future where computers can do much
| more than before, with the integration of personalization, access
| to user information, and the ability to take actions on behalf of
| users.
|
| https://blog.samaltman.com/gpt-4o
| simonw wrote:
| Please don't post AI-generated summaries here.
| reisse wrote:
| The facts that AI-generated summaries are still detected
| instantaneously and are bad enough for people to explicitly
| ask _not_ to post them says something about current state of
| LLMs.
| simonw wrote:
| Honestly the clue here wasn't so much the quality as the
| fact that it was posted at all.
|
| No human would ever bother posting a ~180 word summary of a
| ~250 word blog post like that.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| You must be really confident to make a statement about 4
| billions of people, 99% of which you have never
| interacted with. Your hyper microscopic sample is not
| even randomly distributed.
|
| This reminds me of those psychology studies in the 70s
| and 80s were the subjects were all middle class european-
| american and yet the researchers felt confident enough to
| generalise the results to all humans
| simonw wrote:
| OK, no human of the kind that hangs out in the Hacker
| News comments would write a summary like that.
| bamboozled wrote:
| _access to user information,_
|
| Sam, please stop ok, those things you saw on tv when you were a
| kid? They were dystopian movies, we don't want that for real,
| ok?
| deegles wrote:
| what's the path from LLMs to "true" general AI? is it "only" more
| training power/data or will they need a fundamental shift in
| architecture?
| banjoe wrote:
| I still need to talk very fast to actually chat with ChatGPT
| which is annoying. You can tell they didn't fix this based on how
| fast they are talking in the demo.
| gallerdude wrote:
| Interesting that they didn't mention a bump in capabilities - I
| wrote a LLM benchmark a few weeks ago, and before GPT-4 could
| solve Wordle about ~48% of the time.
|
| Currently with GPT-4o, it's easily clearing 60% - while blazing
| fast, and half the cost. Amazing.
| dom96 wrote:
| I can't help but feel a bit let down. The demos felt pretty
| cherry picked and still had issues with the voice getting cut off
| frequently (especially in the first demo).
|
| I've already played with the vision API, so that doesn't seem all
| that new. But I agree it is impressive.
|
| That said, watching back a Windows Vista speech recognition
| demo[1] I'm starting to wonder if this stuff won't have the same
| fate in a few years.
|
| 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMk8J8DElvA
| quenix wrote:
| I think the voice was getting cut off because it heard the
| crowd reaction and paused (basically it's a feature, not a
| bug).
| kthartic wrote:
| The voice getting cut off was likely just a problem with their
| live presentation setup, not the ChatGPT app. It was flawless
| in the 2nd half of the presentation.
| jrflowers wrote:
| I like the robot typing at the keyboard that has B as half of the
| keys and my favorite part is when it tears up the paper and
| behind it is another copy of that same paper
| hu3 wrote:
| That they are offering more features for free concurs with my
| theory that, just like search, state of the art AI will soon be
| "free", in exchange for personal information/ads.
| martingalex2 wrote:
| Need more data.
| CosmicShadow wrote:
| In the video where the 2 AI's sing together, it starts to get
| really cringey and weird to the point where it literally sounds
| like it's being faked by 2 voice actors off-screen with literal
| guns to their heads trying not to cry, did anyone else get that
| impression?
|
| The tonal talking was impressive, but man that part was like, is
| someone being tortured or forced against their will?
| flakiness wrote:
| Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb4HkLzatb4
|
| I think this demo is more for showing the limit like "It can
| sing isn't it amazing?" than being practical, and I think it
| perfectly served the purpose.
|
| I agree that the tortured impression. It partly comes from the
| facial expression of the presenter. She's clearly enjoying
| pushing it to the edge.
| bigyikes wrote:
| It didn't just demonstrate the ability to sing, but also the
| ability for two AIs to cooperate! I'm not sure which was more
| impressive
| zulban wrote:
| Absolutely. It felt like some kind of new uncanny valley. The
| over the top happiness of the forced singing sounded like
| torture, or like they were about to cry.
|
| Amazing tech, but that was my human experience of it.
| mickg10 wrote:
| So, babelfish soon?
| taytus wrote:
| the OpenAI live stream was quite underwhelming...
| mickg10 wrote:
| So, babelfish incoming?
| alvaroir wrote:
| I'm really impressed about this demo! Apart from the usual
| quality benchmarks I'm really impressed about the latency for
| audio/video: "It can respond to audio inputs in as little as 232
| milliseconds, with an average of 320 milliseconds, which is
| similar to human response"... If true at scale, what could be the
| "tricks" they're using for achieving that?!
| Thaxll wrote:
| It's pretty impressive, although I don't like the voice / tone, I
| prefer something more neutral.
| blixt wrote:
| GPT-4o being a truly multimodal model is exciting, does open the
| door to more interesting products. I was curious about the new
| tokenizer which uses much fewer tokens for non-English, but also
| 1.1x fewer tokens for English, so I'm wondering if this means
| each token now can be more possible values than before? Might
| make sense provided that they now also have audio and image
| output tokens? https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/
|
| I wonder what "fewer tokens" really means then, without context
| on raising the size of each token? It's a bit like saying my JPEG
| image is now using 2x fewer words after I switched from a 32-bit
| to a 64-bit architecture no?
| zackangelo wrote:
| New tokenizer has a much larger vocabulary (200k)[0].
|
| [0]
| https://github.com/openai/tiktoken/commit/9d01e5670ff50eb74c...
| bigyikes wrote:
| Besides increasing the vocabulary size, one way to use "fewer
| tokens" is to adjust how the tokenizer is trained.
|
| If you increase the amount of non-English language
| representation in your data set, there will be more tokens
| which cover non-English concepts.
| kolinko wrote:
| The size can stay the same. Tokens get converted into state
| which is a vector of 4000+ dimensions. So you could have
| millions of tokens even and still encode them into the same
| state size.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| window dressing
|
| his love for yud is showing.
| frabcus wrote:
| I can't see any calculator for the audio pricing
| (https://openai.com/api/pricing/) or document type field in the
| Chat Completions API (https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-
| reference/chat/create) for this new model.
|
| Is the audio in API not available yet?
| willsmith72 wrote:
| > We plan to launch support for GPT-4o's new audio and video
| capabilities to a small group of trusted partners in the API in
| the coming weeks.
|
| So no word on an audio api for regular joes? that's the number 1
| thing i'm looking for
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Looking at the demo video, the AIs are a bit too chatty. The
| human has to often interrupt them.
|
| A nice feature would be to be able to select a Meyer's Briggs
| personality type for your AI chatbot.
| michalf6 wrote:
| I cannot find the mac app anywhere. Is there a link?
| Painsawman123 wrote:
| My main takeaway is that Generative AI has hit a wall... New
| paradigms, architectures and breakthroughs are necessary for the
| field to progress but this begs the question, If everyone knows
| the current paradigms have hit a wall, Why is so much money being
| spent on LLMs ,diffusion models etc,which are bound to become
| obsolete within a few(?) years?
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| Interested in how many LLM startups there are that are going out
| of business due to this voice assistant.
| windowshopping wrote:
| There's a button on this page that says "try on ChatGPT ->" but
| that's still version 3.5 and if I upgraded seems to be version 4.
|
| Is this new version not available to users yet?
| xyst wrote:
| The naming of these systems has me dead
| nikolay wrote:
| I am a paid customer, yet I don't see anything new. I'm tired of
| these fake announcements of "released" features.
| Satam wrote:
| So far OpenAI's template is: amazing demos create hype -> reality
| turns out to be underwhelming.
|
| Sora is not yet released and not clear when it will be. Dall-e is
| worse than mid-journey in most cases. GPT-4 has either gotten
| worse or stayed the same. Vision is not really usable for
| anything practical. Voice is cool but not that useful, especially
| with lack of strong reasoning from the base model.
|
| Is this sandbagging or is the progress slower than what they're
| broadcasting?
| zone411 wrote:
| It doesn't improve on NYT Connections leaderboard:
|
| GPT-4 turbo (gpt-4-0125-preview) 31.0
|
| GPT-4o 30.7
|
| GPT-4 turbo (gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09) 29.7
|
| GPT-4 turbo (gpt-4-1106-preview) 28.8
|
| Claude 3 Opus 27.3
|
| GPT-4 (0613) 26.1
|
| Llama 3 Instruct 70B 24.0
|
| Gemini Pro 1.5 19.9
|
| Mistral Large 17.7
| gentile wrote:
| There is a spelling mistake in the japanese translation under
| language tokenization. In konnichiwa, wa should be ha.
| stilwelldotdev wrote:
| I love that there is a real competition happening. We're going to
| see some insane innovations.
| ravroid wrote:
| In my experience so far, GPT-4o seems to sit somewhere between
| the capability of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.
|
| I'm working on an app that relies more on GPT-4's reasoning
| abilities than inference speed. For my use case, GPT-4o seems to
| do worse than GPT-4 Turbo on reasoning tasks. For me this seems
| like a step-up from GPT-3.5 but not from GPT-4 Turbo.
|
| At half the cost and significantly faster inference speed, I'm
| sure this is a good tradeoff for other use cases though.
| mike00632 wrote:
| I have never tried GPT-4 because I don't pay for it. I'm really
| looking forward to GPT-4o being released to free tier users.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| Very impressive. Please provide a voice that doesn't use radio
| jingle intonation, it is really obnoxious.
|
| I'm only half joking when I say I want to hear a midwestern blue
| collar voice with zero tact.
| ajdoingnothing wrote:
| If there was any glimmer of hope for "Rabbit M1" or "Humane AI
| pin", it can be buried to dust.
| unglaublich wrote:
| I hope we can disable the cringe American hyperemotions.
| stavros wrote:
| I made a website with book summaries
| (https://www.thesummarist.net/) and I tested GPT-4o in generating
| one, and it was bad. It reminded me of GPT-3.5. I didn't test too
| much, but preliminary results don't look good.
| glenstein wrote:
| Text access rolling out today, apparently:
|
| >GPT-4o's text and image capabilities are starting to roll out
| today in ChatGPT. We are making GPT-4o available in the free
| tier, and to Plus users with up to 5x higher message limits.
|
| Anyone have access yet? Not there for me so far.
| toxic72 wrote:
| It shows available for me in the OpenAI playground currently.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| The big news is that this is gonna be free
| wesleyyue wrote:
| If anyone wants to try it for coding, I just added support for
| GPT4o in Double (https://double.bot)
|
| In my tests:
|
| * I have a private set of coding/reasoning tests and it's been
| able to ace all of them so far, beating Opus, GPT4-Turbo, and
| Llama 3 70b. I'll need to find even more challenging tests now...
|
| * It's definitely significantly faster, but we'll see how much of
| this is due to model improvements vs over provisioned capacity.
| GPT4-Turbo was also significantly faster at launch.
| loveiswork wrote:
| While I do feel a bit of "what is the point of my premium sub",
| I'm really excited for these changes.
|
| Considering our brain is a "multi-modal self-reinforcing
| omnimodel", I think it makes sense for the OpenAI team to work on
| making more "senses" native to the model. Doing so early will set
| them up for success when future breakthroughs are made in greater
| intelligence, self-learning, etc.
| 65 wrote:
| Time to bring back Luddism.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I am observing an extremely high rate of text hallucinations with
| gpt-4o (gpt-4o-2024-05-13) as tested via the API. I advise
| extreme caution with it. In contrast, I see no such concern with
| gpt-4-turbo-preview (gpt-4-0125-preview).
| fdb wrote:
| Same here. I observed it making up functions in d3
| (`d3.geoProjectionRaw` and `d3.geoVisible`), in addition to
| ignoring functions it _could_ have used.
| bigyikes wrote:
| If true, makes me wonder what kind of regression testing OpenAI
| does for these models. It can't be easy to write a unit test
| for hallucinations.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| At a high level, ask it to produce a ToC of information about
| something that you know will exist in the future, but does
| not yet exist, but also tell it to decline the request if it
| doesn't verifiably know the answer.
| bigyikes wrote:
| How do you generalize that for all inputs though?
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I am not sure I understand the question. I sampled
| various topics. I used this prompt: https://raw.githubuse
| rcontent.com/impredicative/podgenai/mas...
|
| In the prompt, substitute {topic} with something from the
| near future. As I noted, it behaves correctly for turbo
| (rejecting the request), and very badly for o
| (hallucinating nonsense).
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| I asked it to describe the books of an obscure author. GPT-4o
| hallucinated books. GPT-4 knew it needed to do an internet
| search.
| mtam wrote:
| GPT-4o is very fast but seems to generate some very random ASCII
| Art compared to GPT-4 when text in the art is involved.
| ta-run wrote:
| This looks too good to be true? What's the catch?
|
| Also, wasn't expecting the perf to improve by 2x
| 0xbadc0de5 wrote:
| As a paid user, it would have been nice to see something that
| differentiates that investment from the free tier.
|
| The tech demos are cool and all - but I'm primarily interested in
| the correctness and speed of ChatGPT and how well it aligns with
| _my_ intentions.
| roschdal wrote:
| Chat GPT-4o (OOOO!) - the largest electricity bill in the world.
| unouplonk wrote:
| The end-to-end audio situation is especially interesting as the
| concept has been around for a while but there weren't any
| successful implementations of it up to this point that I'm aware
| of.
|
| See this post from November:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38339222
| razodactyl wrote:
| I think this is a great example of the bootstrapping that was
| enabled when they pipelined the previous models together.
|
| We do this all the time in ML. You can generate a very powerful
| dataset using these means and further iterate with the end model.
|
| What this tells me now is that the runway to GPT5 will be laid
| out with this new architecture.
|
| It was a bit cold in Australia today. Did you Americans stop
| pumping out GPU heat temporarily with the new model release? Heh
| therealmarv wrote:
| after watching the OpenAI videos I'm looking at my sad Google
| Assistant speaker in the corner.
|
| Come on Google... you can update it.
| bogwog wrote:
| I was about to say how this thing is lame because it sounds so
| forced and robotic and fake, and even though the intonations do
| make it sound more human-like, it's very clear that they made a
| big effort to make it sound like natural speech, but failed.
|
| ...but then I realized that's basically the kind of thing Data
| from Star Trek struggles with as part of his character. We're
| almost in that future, and I'm already falling into the role of
| the ignorant human that doesn't respect androids.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| I think people excited should look at the empty half of the glass
| here, this is pretty much an admitance that they are struggling
| to go past gpt 4 on a significant scale.
|
| Not like they have to be scared yet, I mean Google has yet to
| release their vaporware Ultra model that is supposedly like 1%
| better than GPT 4 in some metrics...
|
| I smell an AI crash coming in a few years if they can't actually
| get this stuff usable for day to day life.
| garyrob wrote:
| So far, I'm impressed. It seems to be significantly better than
| GPT-4 at accessing current online documentation and forming
| answers that use it effectively. I've been asking it to do so,
| and it has.
| Hugsun wrote:
| Very interesting and extremely impressive!
|
| I tried using the voice chat in their app previously and was
| disappointed. The big UX problem was that it didn't try to
| understand when I had finished speaking. English is a second
| language and I paused a bit too long thinking of a word and it
| just started responding to my obviously half spoken sentence.
| Trying again it just became stressful as I had to rush my words
| out to avoid an annoying response to an unfinished thought.
|
| I didn't try interrupting it but judging by the comments here it
| was not possible.
|
| It was very surprising to me to be so overtly exposed to the
| nuances of real conversation. Just this one thing of not
| understanding when it's your turn to talk made the interaction
| very unpleasant, more than I would have expected.
|
| On that note, I noticed that the AI in the demo seems to be very
| rambly. It almost always just kept talking and many statements
| were reiterations of previous ones. It reminded me of a type of
| youtuber that uses a lot of filler phrases like "let's go ahead
| and ...", just to be more verbose and lessen silences.
|
| Most of the statements by the guy doing the demo were
| interrupting the AI.
|
| It's still extremely impressive but I found this interesting
| enough to share. It will be exciting to see how hard it is to
| reproduce these abilities in the open, and to solve this issue.
| luminen wrote:
| "I paused a bit too long thinking of a word and it just started
| responding to my obviously half spoken sentence. Trying again
| it just became stressful as I had to rush my words out to avoid
| an annoying response to an unfinished thought."
|
| I'm a native speaker and this was my experience as well. I had
| better luck manually sending the message with the "push to
| hold" button.
| dionian wrote:
| Same. It cuts off really quick when I'm trying to phrase a
| complex prompt and I wind up losing my work. So I go to the
| manual dictation mode, which works really nicely but doesnt
| give me the hands off mode. I admit, the hands off mode is
| often better for simpler interactions, but even then, I am
| frequently cut off mid-prompt.
| ijidak wrote:
| > I noticed that the AI in the demo seems to be very rambly
|
| I know this is a serious conversation, but when the presenters
| had to cut it off, I got flashbacks to Data in Star Trek TNG!!
| And 3PO in Star Wars!
|
| Human: "Shut up"
|
| Robot: "Shutting up sir"
|
| Turns out rambling AI was an accurate prediction!
| yreg wrote:
| There needs to be an override for this.
|
| When you tell Siri to shut up, it either apologizes or
| complains about your behaviour. When you tell Alexa to shut
| up, it immediately goes silent.
|
| I prefer the latter when it comes to computers.
| Hugsun wrote:
| That's funny and a very good point.
|
| It also tangentially reminds me of an excellent video I re-
| watched recently called The Tragedy of Droids[1]. I highly
| recommend it. It raises interesting moral questions about the
| nature of droids in the star wars universe.
|
| [1]: https://youtu.be/WD2UrB7zepo
| yreg wrote:
| I have the same ESL UX problem with all the AI assistants.
|
| I do my work in english and talk to people just fine, but with
| machines it's usually awkward for me.
|
| Also on your other note (demo seems to be very rambly), it
| bothered me as well. I don't want the AI to continue speaking,
| while having nothing to say until I interrupt it. Be brief.
| That can be solved through prompts at least.
| obmelvin wrote:
| This was such a huge issue for me and made it very difficult to
| use conversation mode to practice any sort of professional
| interaction or presentation
| hbn wrote:
| > I noticed that the AI in the demo seems to be very rambly
|
| That's been a major issue for me with LLMs this whole time.
| They can't just give me an answer, they have to spout a whole
| preamble that usually includes spitting my query back at me and
| trying to impress me with how many words it's saying, like it's
| a requirement. You can tell it e.g. "don't give me anything
| other than the list" but it's annoying to have to ask it every
| time.
|
| Every AI chat needs a "no yap mode"
| ianbicking wrote:
| They really need a "hidden yap" mode. LLMs perform better on
| difficult questions or interactions when they have "room to
| think". An introductory paragraph is like that, and it's as
| much for the LLM to form its thoughts as it's for the user.
| But for all that the intro paragraph doesn't have to be
| _read_ by the user, it just has to be emitted by GPT and put
| into the transcript.
| Hugsun wrote:
| That's very true. I believe it's a variation of chain of
| thought prompting they're doing. ChatGPT seems trained to
| do this for one.
| jabits wrote:
| I'm kind of glad it does this so I know that it understood
| what I asked. A good presenter will do this as well when
| responding to questions.
| Hugsun wrote:
| I almost always find it too verbose and unnaturally mimicy
| when bouncing the question back. It doesn't paraphrase my
| request. It's more like restating it.
|
| What I notice most is that almost always repeats verbatim
| unnaturally long parts of my requests.
|
| This might be more useful to people that do lazy prompting.
| My nature compels me to be clear and specific in all
| written text.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Someone suggested writing "Be concise in your answers.
| Excessive politeness is physically painful to me." in
| ChatGPT's custom instructions, and so far I've liked the
| results. I mean, I haven't done A/B testing, but I haven't
| had a problem with excessive verbosity every since I set that
| custom prompt.
| ianbicking wrote:
| This makes me wonder: if you tell 4o something like "listen to
| me until I say all done" will it be able to suppress its output
| until it hears that?
|
| I'm guessing not quite possible now, just because I'm guessing
| patiently waiting is a different band of information that they
| haven't implemented. But I really don't know.
| Hugsun wrote:
| I'd bet it can't do it now. I'd be curious to hear what it
| says in response. Partially because it requires time
| dependent reasoning about being a participant in a
| conversation.
|
| It shouldn't be too hard to make this work though. If you
| make the AI start by emitting either a "my turn to talk" or
| "still listening" token it should be able to listen
| patiently. If trained correctly.
| tr3ntg wrote:
| I don't think so. The listening and responding isn't being
| managed by an LLM. That's just the app listening with a
| microphone and timer.
|
| Stop talking for x sec = process response.
|
| I bet the bot would wholeheartedly agree that it would
| definitely wait for you to finish talking, then just not do
| it. It doesn't know anything about the app it's "in." At
| least at a deep level.
|
| I agree that all this is impressive, but with odd, unclear
| bounds that sometimes confuse users.
| sznio wrote:
| > many statements were reiterations of previous ones
|
| SEO spam got into the training data.
| chaorace wrote:
| The funny thing actually is that repeating yourself is a
| _really_ important communication skill. The model seems to
| have internalized that, but isn 't yet quite at the level
| where it properly understands _why_ / _when_ to repeat.
|
| It's probably related to GPT's more general sycophant
| inclinations. Acting like a doormat is apparently easier to
| teach than nuanced politeness -- much in the same way that
| repeating yourself ad nauseum is easier than intuiting
| specific points of emphasis.
| grantsucceeded wrote:
| it seems like the ability to interrupt is more like the interrupt
| in the computer sense ... A control-c (or control-s tty flow
| control for you old timers), not a cognitive evaluation followed
| by the "reasoned" decision to pause voice output. not that it
| matters i guess, its just not general intelligence. its just flow
| control.
|
| but also, thats why it fails a real turing test. a real person
| would be irritated as fuck by the interruptions
| due-rr wrote:
| It takes the #1 and #2 spots on the aider code leader board[1].
|
| [1]: https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/
| tgtweak wrote:
| I feel like gpt4 has gotten progressively less useful since
| release even, despite all the "updates" and training. It seems to
| give correct but vague answers (political even) more and more
| instead of actual results. It also tends to run short and give
| brief replies vs full length replies.
|
| I hope this isn't an artifact from optimization for scores and
| not actual function. Likewise it would be disheartening but not
| unheard of for them to reduce the performance of the previous
| model when releasing a new one in order to make the upgrade feel
| like that much more of an upgrade. I know this is certainly the
| case with cellphones (even though the claim is that it is
| unintentional) but I can't help but think the same could be true
| here.
|
| All of this is coming as news that gpt5 based on a new underlying
| model is not far off and that gpt4(&o) may become the new
| gpt3.5-turbo use case for most apps that are currently trying to
| optimize costs with their use of the service.
| glenstein wrote:
| May I ask what you know about chat GPT5 being based on a new
| underlying model?
| borgdefense wrote:
| I don't know, my experience is that it is very hard to tell if
| the model is better or worse with an update.
|
| One day I will have an amazing session and the next it seems
| like it has been nerfed only to give better results than ever
| the next day. Wash, rinse , repeat and randomize that ordering.
|
| So far, I would have not be able to tell the difference between
| 4 and 4o.
|
| If this is the new 3.5 though then 5 will be worth the wait to
| say the least.
| blixt wrote:
| I don't see any details on how API access to these features will
| work.
|
| This is the first true multimodal network from OpenAI, where you
| can send an image in and retain the visual properties of the
| image in the output from the network (previously the input image
| would be turned into text by the model, and sent to the Dall-E 3
| model which would provide a URL). Will we get API updates to be
| able to do this?
|
| Also, will we be able to tap into a realtime streaming instance
| through the API to replicate the audio/video streams shown in the
| demos? I imagine from the Be My Eyes partnership that they have
| some kind of API like this, but will it be opened up to more
| developers?
|
| Even disregarding streaming, will the Chat API receive support
| for audio input/output as well? Previously one might've used a
| TTS model to voice the output from the model, but with a truly
| multimodal model the audio output will contain a lot more nuance
| that can't really be expressed in text.
| og_kalu wrote:
| API is up but only text, image in, text out works. I don't know
| if this is temporary. I really hope so.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I have some questions/curiosities from a technical implementation
| perspective that I wonder if someone more in the know about ML,
| LLMs, and AI than I would be able to answer.
|
| Obviously there's a reason in dropping the price of gpt-4o but
| not gpt-4t. Yes, the new tokenizer has improvements for non-
| English tokens, but that can't be the bulk of the reason why 4t
| is more expensive than 4o. Given the multi-model training set,
| how is 4o cheaper to train/run than 4t?
|
| Or is this just a business decision, anyone with an app they're
| not immediately updating from 4t to 4o continues to pay a premium
| while they can offer a cheaper alternative for those asking for
| it (kind of like a coupon policy)?
| cchance wrote:
| HOW ARE PEOPLE NOT MORE EXCITED, hes cutting off the AI mid
| sentence in these and its pausing to readjust in damn near
| realtime latency! WTF Thats a MAJOR step forward, what the hell
| is gpt5 going to look like.
|
| That realtime translation would be amazing as an option in say
| Skype or Teams, set each individuals native language and handle
| automated translation, shit tie it into ElevenLabs to replicate
| your voice as well! Native translation in realtime with your own
| voice
| localfirst wrote:
| calm down there is barely any ground breaking stuff, this is
| basically chatgpt 3.9 but far more expensive than 3.5
|
| looks like another stunt from OAI in anticipation of Google IO
| tomorrow
|
| Gemini 2.0 will be the closest we get to ChatGPT-5
| cchance wrote:
| Ah so surpassing Gemini 1.5 Pro and all other Models on
| Vision understanding by 5-10 points is "not ground breaking"
| all while doing it at insane latency.
|
| Jesus if this shit doesn't make you coffee, and make 0
| mistakes no ones happy anymore LOL.
| localfirst wrote:
| the only thing you should be celebrating is that its 50%
| cheaper and twice as quick at generating text but virtually
| no real ground breaking leaps and bounds to those studying
| this space carefully.
|
| basically its chat gpt3.9 at 50% of chatgpt4 prices
| Jensson wrote:
| > virtually no real ground breaking leaps and bounds to
| those studying this space carefully
|
| What they showed is enough to replace voice acting as a
| profession, this is the most revolutionary thing in AI
| the past year. Everything else is at the "fun toy but not
| good enough to replace humans in the field" stage, but
| this is there.
| cchance wrote:
| Between this and Eleven Labs demoing their song model,
| literally doing full on rap battles with articulate words
| people are seriously slacking on what these models are
| now capable of for the voice acting/music and overall
| "art" areas of the market.
| cchance wrote:
| Cool so ... just ignore the test results and say bullshit
| lol It's not GPT3.9 many have already said its better
| than GPT4 turbo, its better than Gemini 1.5 Pro and Opus
| on Vision recognition. but sure... the price difference
| is whats new lol
| EternalFury wrote:
| At some point, scalability is the best form of exploitation.
| The exploration piece requires a lot more that engineering.
| dcchambers wrote:
| Honestly I found it annoying that he HAD TO cut the AI off mid-
| sentence. These things just ramble on and on and on. If you
| could put emotion to it, it's as if they're uncomfortable with
| silence and just fill the space with nonsense.
|
| Let's hope there's a future update where it can take video from
| both the front and rear cameras simultaneously so it can
| identify when I'm annoyed and stop talking (or excited, and
| share more).
| cchance wrote:
| I mean it didn't really ramble he just seemed to be in a
| rush, and i'm sure you could system message it to provide
| short concise answers always.
| dcchambers wrote:
| That is not at all the impression I got.
|
| Human: "Hey How's it Going?"
|
| The AI: "Hey there, it's going great. How about you?
| [Doesn't stop to let him answer] I see you're rocking an
| OpenAI Hoodie - nice choice. What's up with that ceiling
| though? Are you in a cool industrial style office or
| something?"
|
| How we expect a human to answer: "Hey I'm great, how are
| you?"
|
| Maybe they set it up this way to demonstrate the vision
| functionality. But still - rambling.
|
| Later on:
|
| Human: "We've got a new announcement to make."
|
| AI: "That's exciting. Announcements are always a big deal.
| Judging by the setup it looks like it's going to be quite
| the professional production. Is this announcement related
| to OpenAI perhaps? I'm intrigued - [cut off]"
|
| How we expect a human to answer: "That's exciting! Is it
| about OpenAI?"
|
| These AI chat bots all generate responses like a teenager
| being verbose in order to hit some arbitrary word count in
| an essay or because they think it makes them sound smarter.
|
| Maybe it's just that I find it creepy that these companies
| are trying to humanize AI while I want it to stay the
| _tool_ that it is. I don 't want fake emotion and fake
| intrigue.
| okrad wrote:
| I found it insightful. They showed us how to handle the rough
| edges like when it thought his face was a wooden table and he
| cleared the stale image reference by saying "I'm not a wooden
| table. What do you see now?" then it recovered and moved on.
|
| Perfect should not be the enemy of good. It will get better.
| kleiba wrote:
| I cannot believe that that overly excited giggle tone of voice
| you see in the demo videos made it through quality control?! I've
| only watched two videos so far and it's already annoying me to
| the point that I couldn't imagine using it regularly.
| Jensson wrote:
| Just tell it to stop giggling if you don't like it. They
| obviously choose that for the presentation since it shows off
| the hardest things it can do, it is much easier to act formal,
| and since it understands when you ask it to speak in a
| different way there is no problem making it speak more formal.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Heck I find it annoying but I also want to ask it to push the
| bubbliness to its absurdest limits. And then double it. Until
| it's some kind of pure horror
| caseyy wrote:
| Few people are talking about it but... what do you think about
| the very over-the-top enthusiasm?
|
| To me, it sounds like TikTok TTS, it's a bit uncomfortable to
| listen to. I've been working with TTS models and they can produce
| much more natural sounding language, so it is clearly a stylistic
| choice.
|
| So what do you think?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| All these language models are very malleable. They demonstrated
| changing the temperament in the story telling time.
| caseyy wrote:
| Looks like their TTS component is separate from the model. I
| just tried 4o, and there is a list of voices to select from.
| If they really only allowed that one voice or burned it into
| the model, then that would probably have made the model
| faster, but I think it would have been a blunder.
| og_kalu wrote:
| The new voice capabilities haven't rolled out yet.
| caseyy wrote:
| Oh, very interesting. The 4o model does now have TTS with
| a voice option similar to the one in the video, although
| objectively less over the top.
| glenstein wrote:
| I like for that degree of expressiveness to be available as an
| option, although it would be really irritating if I was trying
| to use it to learn some sort of academic coursework or
| something.
|
| But if it's one in a range of possible stylistic flourishes and
| personalities, I think it's a plus.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I'm a huge user of GPT4 and Opus in my work but I'm a huge user
| of GPT4-Turbo voice in my personal life. I use it on my commutes
| to learn all sorts of stuff. I've never understood the details of
| cameras and the relationship between shutter speed and aperture
| and iso in a modern dslr which given the aurora was important. We
| talked through and I got to an understanding in a way having read
| manuals and textbooks didn't really help before. I'm a much
| better learner by being able to talk and hear and ask questions
| and get responses.
|
| Extend this to quantum foam, to ergodic processes, to entropic
| force, to Darius and Xerces, to poets of the 19th century - it's
| changed my life. Really glad to see an investment in stream
| lining this flow.
| Xiol32 wrote:
| Have you actually verified anything you've learned from it, or
| are you just taking everything it says as gospel?
| xNeil wrote:
| it's rarely wrong when it comes to concepts - it's the facts
| and numbers that it hallucinates.
| xcv123 wrote:
| Just like learning from another human. A person can teach
| you the higher level concepts of some programming language
| but wouldn't remember the entire standard library.
| sunnynagam wrote:
| I do similar stuff, I'm just willing to learn a lot more at
| the cost of a small percent of my knowledge being incorrect
| from hallucinations, just a personal opinion. Sure human
| produced sources of info is gonna be more accurate (more not
| 100% still), and I'll default to that for important stuff.
|
| But the difference is I actually want to and do use this
| interface more.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Also even if I learn completely factual information, I'm
| still probably going to misremember some facts myself.
| blazespin wrote:
| Good thing to do regardless of the source, AI or Human,
| right?
|
| I do verify by using topics I'm an expert in and I find
| hallucination to be less of an issue than depth of nuance.
|
| For topics I'm just learning, depth of nuance goes over my
| head anyways.
| residentraspber wrote:
| I agree with this as good practice in general, but I think
| the human vs LLM thing is not a great comparison in this
| case.
|
| When I ask a friend something I assume that they are in
| good faith telling me what they know. Now, they could be
| wrong (which could be them saying "I'm not 100% sure on
| this") or they could not be remembering correctly, but
| there's some good faith there.
|
| An LLM, on the other hand, just makes up facts and doesn't
| know if they're incorrect or not or even what percentage
| sure it is. And to top things off, it will speak with
| absolute certainty the whole time.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Of course, I'm not an idiot and I understand LLM very well.
| But generally as far as well documented stuff goes and stuff
| that exists it's almost 100% accurate. It's when you ask it
| to extrapolate or discuss topics that are fiction (even
| without realizing) you stray. Asking it to reason is a bad
| idea as it fundamentally is unable to reason and any
| approximation of reasoning is precisely that. Generally
| though for effectively information retrieval of well
| documented subjects it's invariably accurate and can answer
| relatively nuanced questions.
| Loughla wrote:
| How do I know what is well documented with established
| agreement on process/subject, though? Wouldn't this be
| super open to ignorance bias?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Because I'm a well educated grown up and am familiar with
| a great many subjects that I want to learn more about.
| How do you? I can't help you with that. You might be
| better off waiting for the technology to mature more.
| It's very nascent but I'm sure in the fullness of time
| you might feel comfortable asking it questions on basic
| optics and photography and other well documented subjects
| with established agreement on process etc, once you
| establish your own basis for what those subjects are. In
| the mean time I'm super excited for this interface to
| mature for my own use!! (It is true tho I do love and
| live dangerously!)
| skydhash wrote:
| > _You might be better off waiting for the technology to
| mature more. It's very nascent but I'm sure in the
| fullness of time you might feel comfortable asking it
| questions on basic optics and photography and other well
| documented subjects_
|
| Or open a book right now.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Are those mutually exclusive activities?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| it's more reliable than the facts most of my friends tell me
| brailsafe wrote:
| I think this is probably one of the most compelling personal
| uses for a tool like this, but your use of it begs the same
| question as every other activity that amounts to more pseudo-
| intellectual consumption; what is the value of that
| information, and how much of ones money and time should be
| allocated to digesting (usually high-level) arbitrary
| information?
|
| If I was deliberately trying to dive deep on _one_ particular
| hobby, or trying to understand how a particular algorithm
| works, there 's clear value in spending concentrated time to
| learn that subject, deliberately focused and engaged with it,
| and a system like your describe might play a role in that. If
| I'm in school and forced to quickly learn a bunch of crap I'll
| be tested on, then the system has defined another source of
| real value, at least in the short term. But if I'm diving deep
| on one particular hobby and filling my brain with all sorts of
| other ostensibly important information, I think that just
| amounts at best to more entertainment that fakes its way above
| other aspects of life in the hierarchy of ways one could spend
| time (the irony of me saying this in a comment on HN is not
| lost on me).
|
| Earlier in my life I figured it would be worthwhile to read
| articles on the bus, or listen to non-fiction podcasts, because
| knowledge is inherently valuable and there's not enough time,
| and if I just wore earbuds throughout my entire day, I'd learn
| so much! How about at the gym, so much wasted learning time
| while pushing weights, keep those earbuds in! A walk around the
| neighborhood? On the plane? On the train? All time that could
| be spent learning about some bs that's recently become much
| easier to access, or so my 21 y.o self would have me believe.
|
| But I think now it's a phony and hollow existence if you're
| just cramming your brain with all sorts of stuff in the
| background or in marginally more than a passive way. I could
| listen to a lot of arbitrary German language material, but
| realistically the value I'd convince myself I'd get out of any
| of that is lost if I'm not about to take that home and grind it
| out for hours, days, move to a German speaking country, have an
| existing intense interest in untranslatable German art, or have
| literally any reason to properly learn a language and dedicate
| real expensive time to it.
| joquarky wrote:
| I did this information sponge phase up until my mid-40s with
| burnout. Now I wish I had invested some of that time in
| learning social skills.
| skydhash wrote:
| These days, if something sparks my interest, I get an ebook
| on it or spend 15 mns collecting materials. Then I add it to
| the hoard of "read someday". And go back to the task on hand.
| If I'm going to learn something, then I do it properly (The
| goal is to be able to explain it without reciting word by
| word). And I'd want proper materials for that.
| brailsafe wrote:
| This is pretty much what I do too, although lately I try
| and reduce how much things I add to that list and have
| stopped caring about whether or not I actually get back to
| it. Anything that I feel I can devote the time to and that
| I feel compelled enough to, will resurface.
| djeastm wrote:
| Learning for learning's sake, or without a distinct goal to
| use the information you're learning in the future, isn't
| necessarily a bad thing. That is, unless you think that
| learning so widely is going to translate into something more
| than it is, like magic or something. Being well-rounded is a
| good goal for people to achieve, imo.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Being well-rounded and learning for learning's sake is
| absolutely something that keeps you growing as a person
| imo. My take is just that it's worth being critical of what
| one needs to learn, how much work it would actually take,
| and whether they really are engaging with the subject in a
| way that can be called learning rather than information
| entertainment or some other extremely low level.
|
| With pure knowledge, it's a bit easier to convince yourself
| that putting in some airpods and listening to a subject
| while you're actually dividing your attention with the act
| of driving, is effective "learning". But with things that
| inherently require more physical engagement, this would
| seem a bit silly. You can't really watch YouTube video or
| ask ChatGPT how to kickflip on a skateboard and convince
| yourself that you've learned much. You need to go to a
| parking lot and rep out 1000 attempts.
|
| My argument is just that passive digestion of information
| has an opportunity cost, and unless you're already engaged
| enough to take it to the streets somehow, you're paying a
| high opportunity cost whereby those moments could be
| enjoyed as the periodic gaps they are
| fekunde wrote:
| Just something I noticed in the Language tokenization section
|
| When referring to itself, it uses the female word in Marathi
| nmskaar, maajhe naav jiipiittii-4o aahe| mii ek nviin prkaarcii
| bhaassaa moNddel aahe| tumhaalaa bhettuun aanNd jhaalaa!
|
| and Male word in Hindi nmste, meraa naam jiipiittii-4o hai /
| maiN ek ne prkaar kaa bhaassaa moNddl huuN / aapse milkr acchaa
| lgaa!
| xdennis wrote:
| In my language (Romanian) it refers to itself as a male.
| Although if I address it as a female it responds as one.
| cchance wrote:
| Wow Vision Understanding blew Gemini Pro 1.5 out of the water
| localfirst wrote:
| This isn't chatgpt 5
| ElemenoPicuares wrote:
| I'm so happy seeing this technology flourish! Some call it hype,
| but this much increased worker productivity is sure to spike
| executive compensation. I'm so glad we're not going to let China
| win by beating us to the punch tanking hundreds of thousands, if
| not millions of people's income without bothering to see if
| there's a sane way to avoid it. What good are people, anyway if
| there isn't incredible tech to enhance them with?
| bigyikes wrote:
| The AI duet really starts to hint at what will make AI so
| powerful. It's not just that they're smart, it's that they can be
| cloned.
|
| If your wallet is large enough, you can make 2 GPTs sing just as
| easily as you can make 100 GPTs sing.
|
| What can you do with a billion GPTs?
| someplaceguy wrote:
| > you can make 2 GPTs sing just as easily as you can make 100
| GPTs sing.
|
| > What can you do with a billion GPTs?
|
| The world's largest choir?
| cchance wrote:
| Wait i thought it said available to free users... i don't see it
| on chatgpt
| Erazal wrote:
| I'm not as much surprised by the capabilities of new model (IMHO
| same as GPT-4) as by it's real time capabilities.
|
| My brother who can't see correctly, will use this to cook a meal
| without me explaining this to him it's so cool.
|
| People all around the world will now get real-time AI assistance
| for a ton of queries.
|
| Heck - I have a meeting bot API company
| (https://aimeetingbot.com) and that makes me really hyped!
| EternalFury wrote:
| Pretty responsible progress management by OpenAI.
|
| Kicking off another training wave is easy, if you can afford the
| electricity, but without new, non-AI tainted datasets or new
| methods, what's the point?
|
| So, in the meantime, make magic with the tool you already have,
| without freaking out the politicians or the public.
|
| Wise approach.
| localfirst wrote:
| 50% cheaper than ChatGPT-4 Turbo...
|
| But this falls short of the ChatGPT-5 we were promised last year
|
| edit: ~~just tested it out and seems closer to Gemini 1.5 ~~ and
| it is faster than turbo....
|
| edit: its basically chat gpt 3.9. not quite 4 definitely not 3.5.
| just not sure if the prices make sense.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| The stock market doesn't seem too impressed - GOOG rebounded from
| strong red to neutral.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Probably because people thought OpenAI was going to launch a
| new search engine, but didn't.
| nuz wrote:
| Yet another release _right_ before google releases something.
| This time right before Google IO. Third time they 've done this
| by my count.
| 0x_rs wrote:
| Microsoft/OAI and Google have been doing those (often sudden)
| announcements back to back a lot. Bing Chat/Bard, Sora/Gemini
| 1.5, some other I don't remember, and now another. Not
| surprising, trying to out-hype the other, but Google's always
| coming out worse, with either no product available and just a
| showcase (if it's a real, working product and not made up), or
| unusable/unmarketable (Gemini's image generation issues). It
| looks as if they're stumbling and OpenAI just runs circles
| around them announcements wise, and there doesn't seem to be
| any suggestion that might change anytime soon.
| nestorD wrote:
| The press statement has consistent image generation and other
| image manipulation (depicting the same character in different
| poses, taking a photo and generating a caricature of the person,
| etc) that does not seem deployed to the chat interface.
|
| Will they be deployed? They would make the OpenAI image model
| significantly more useful than the competition.
| EternalFury wrote:
| Pretty responsible progress management by OpenAI. Kicking off
| another training wave is easy, if you can afford the electricity,
| but without new, non-AI tainted datasets or new methods, what's
| the point? So, in the meantime, make magic with the tool you
| already have, without freaking out the politicians or the public.
| Wise approach.
| jpeter wrote:
| Impressive way to gather more training data
| mindcandy wrote:
| Ohhhhhhhh, boy... Listening to all that emotional vocal
| inflection and feedback... There are going to be at least 10
| million lonely guys with new AI girlfriends. "She's not real.
| But, she interested in everything I say and excited about
| everything I care about" is enough of a sales pitch for a lot of
| people.
| Jensson wrote:
| > She's not real
|
| But she will be real at some point in the next 10-20 years, the
| main thing to solve for that to be a reality is for robots to
| safely touch humans, and they are working really really hard on
| that because it is needed for so many automation tasks,
| automating sex is just a small part of it.
|
| And after that you have a robot that listens to you, do your
| chores and have sex with you, at that point she is "real". At
| first they will be expensive so you have robot brothels (I
| don't think there are laws against robot prostitution in many
| places), but costs should come down.
| elicksaur wrote:
| We have very different definitions of "real" for this topic.
| itscodingtime wrote:
| Doesn't have to be real for the outcomes to the be the
| same.
| pb7 wrote:
| The outcomes are not the same.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > "But the fact that my Kindroid has to like me is meaningful
| to me in the sense that I don't care if it likes me, because
| there's no achievement for it to like me. The fact that there
| is a human on the other side of most text messages I send
| matters. I care about it because it is another mind."
|
| > "I care that my best friend likes me and could choose not
| to."
|
| Ezra Klein shared some thoughts on this on his AI podcast
| with Nilay Patel that resonated on this topic for me
| Jensson wrote:
| People care about dogs, I have never met a dog that didn't
| love its owner. So no, you are just wrong there, I have
| never heard anyone say that the love they get from their
| dogs is false, people love dogs exactly because their love
| is so unconditional.
|
| Maybe there are some weirdos out there that feels
| unconditional love isn't love, but I have never heard
| anyone say that.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Also I don't know how you can choose to like or not like
| someone. You either do or you don't.
| sevagh wrote:
| Interesting. I feel like I can consciously choose to like
| or dislike people. Once you get to know people better,
| your image of them evolves, and the decision to continue
| liking them is made repeatedly every time that image
| changes.
|
| When your initial chemistry/biology/whatever latches onto
| a person and you're powerless to change it? That's a
| scary thought.
| sevagh wrote:
| >Maybe there are some weirdos out there that feels
| unconditional love isn't love, but I have never heard
| anyone say that.
|
| I'll be that weirdo.
|
| Dogs seemingly are bred to love. I can literally get some
| cash from an ATM, drive out to the sticks, buy a puppy
| from some breeder, and it will love me. Awww, I'm a hero.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Do you think that literally being able to buy love
| cheapens it? Way I see it, love is love: surely it being
| readily available is a good thing.
|
| I'm bred to love my parents, and them me; but the fact
| that it's automatic doesn't make it feel any less.
| Janicc wrote:
| I guess I'm the weirdo who actually always considered the
| unconditional love of a dog to be vastly inferior to the
| earned love of a cat for example.
| malfist wrote:
| The cat only fools you into thinking it loves you to lure
| you into a false sense of security
| px43 wrote:
| That's just the toxoplasmosis speaking :-D
| plokiju wrote:
| Dogs don't automatically love either, you have to build a
| bond. Especially if they are shelter dogs with abusive
| histories, they're often nervous at first
|
| They're usually loving by nature, but you still have to
| build a rapport, like anyone else
| Jensson wrote:
| When mom brought home a puppy when we were kids it loved
| us from the start, don't remember having to build
| anything I was just there. Older dogs, sure, but when
| they grow up with you they love you, they aren't like
| human siblings that often fight and start disliking each
| other etc, dogs just love you.
| soperj wrote:
| > I have never met a dog that didn't love its owner.
|
| Michael Vick's past dogs have words.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| >has to like me
|
| I feel likely people aren't imagining with enough cyberpunk
| dystopian enthusiasm. Can't an AI be made that doesn't
| inherently like people? Wouldn't it be possible to make an
| AI that likes some people and not others? Maybe even make
| AIs that are inclined to liking certain traits, but which
| don't do so automatically so it must still be convinced?
|
| At some point we have an AI which could choose not to like
| people, but would value different traits than normal
| humans. For example an AI that doesn't value appearance at
| all and instead values unique obsessions as being
| comparable to how the standard human values attractiveness.
|
| It also wouldn't be so hard for a person to convince
| themselves that human "choice" isn't so free spirited as
| imagined, and instead is dependent upon specific factors no
| different than these unique trained AIs, except that the
| traits the AI values are traits that people generally find
| themselves not being valued by others for.
| Jensson wrote:
| Extension of that is fine tuning an AI that loves you the
| most of everyone and not other humans. That way the love
| becomes really real, the AI loves you for who you are,
| instead of loving just anybody. Isn't that what people
| hope for?
|
| I'd imagine they will start fine tuning AI girlfriends to
| do that in the future, because that way the love probably
| feels more, and then people will ask "is human love
| really real love?" because humans can't love that
| strongly.
| astrange wrote:
| I think Ezra Klein's continual theme of loneliness is
| undermined by that time he wrote a Vox article basically
| saying we should make it illegal to have sex.
| (https://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/yes-means-yes-is-a-
| te...)
|
| It is interesting that he's basically trying to theme
| himself as Mr. Rogers though.
| al_borland wrote:
| This is not a solution... everyone gets a robot and then the
| human races dies out. Robots lack a key feature of human
| relationships... the ability to make new human life.
| whenlambo wrote:
| yet
| Jensson wrote:
| It is a solution to a problem, not a solution to every
| problem.
|
| If you want to solve procreation them you can do that
| without humans having sex with humans.
| al_borland wrote:
| This future some people are envisioning seems very
| depressing.
| sapphicsnail wrote:
| > And after that you have a robot that listens to you, do
| your chores and have sex with you, at that point she is
| "real".
|
| I sure hope you're single because that is a terrible way to
| view relationships.
| Jensson wrote:
| That isn't how I view relationships with humans, that is
| how I view relationships with robots.
|
| I hope you understand the difference between a relationship
| with a human and a robot? Or do you think we shouldn't take
| advantage of robots being programmable to do what we want?
| aeyes wrote:
| Without memory of previous conversations an AI girlfriend is
| going to get boring really fast.
| danielbln wrote:
| https://openai.com/index/memory-and-new-controls-for-
| chatgpt...
| int_19h wrote:
| As it happens, ChatGPT has memory enabled by default these
| days.
| sangnoir wrote:
| What possibly could go wrong with a snitching AI girlfriend
| remembers everything you say and when? If OpenAI doesn't
| have a Law Enforcement lliason who charges a "modest
| amount", then they dont want to earn the billions on
| investment back. I imagine every spy agency worth its salt
| wants access to this data for human intelligence purposes.
| llm_trw wrote:
| I hope they name their gf service Mata Hari.
| prawn wrote:
| "You've already told me that childhood story, three times."
| llm_trw wrote:
| Hear me out: what if we don't want real?
| gffrd wrote:
| Hmm! Tell me more: why not want real? What are the upsides?
| And downsides?
| grugagag wrote:
| Real would pop their bubble. An AI would tell them what
| they want to hear, how they want it to hear, when they want
| to hear it. Except there won't be any real partner.
| globular-toast wrote:
| To paraphrase Patrice O'Neal: men want to be alone, but we
| don't want to be by ourselves. That means we want a woman
| to be around, just not _right here_.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > Hmm! Tell me more: why not want real? What are the
| upsides? And downsides?
|
| Finding a partner with which you resonate takes a lot of
| time, which means an insanely high opportunity cost.
|
| The question rather is: even if you consider the real one
| to be clearly better, is it worth the additional cost
| (including opportunity cost)? Or phrased in a HN-friendly
| language: when doing development of some product, why use
| an expensive Intel or AMD processor when a simple
| microcontroller does the job much more cheaply?
| antegamisou wrote:
| You need counseling if this really is your approach on
| forming relationships with others.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| It's pretty steep to claim that I need counseling when I
| tell basic economic facts that every economics student
| learns in the first few months of his academic studies.
|
| If you don't like the harsh truth that I wrote: basically
| every somewhat encompassing textbook about business
| administration gives hints on what are possible solutions
| for this problem; lying on some head shrinker's couch is
| not one of them ... :-)
| antegamisou wrote:
| > basic economic facts that every economics student
| learns in the first few months of his academic studies.
|
| Millions of people around the world are in satisfying
| relationships without autistically extrapolating shitty
| corporate buzzword terms to unrelated scenarios.
|
| This reply validates even more my original comment.
|
| Maybe not even counseling is worth it in your case. You
| sound unsalvageable. Maybe institutionalization is a
| better option.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > You sound unsalvageable.
|
| I am indeed unsalvageable. :-D
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| I will take a picture of this message and add it to the list
| of reasons for population collapse.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| That may be how AI ends up saving the Earth!
| llm_trw wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uE96qUlJ_4
|
| Here's a video.
| astrange wrote:
| That's a partial equilibrium solution - natural selection
| will cause people to evolve around this danger.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| About 10% to 20% of people will bother to breed, which
| seems like a sustainable equilibrium:
|
| https://evil.fandom.com/wiki/Robophobia
|
| >According to the book Phobias: "A Handbook of Theory and
| Treatment", published by Wile Coyote, between 10% and 20%
| of people worldwide are affected by robophobia. Even
| though many of them have severe symptoms, a very small
| percentage will ever receive some kind of treatment for
| the disorder.
| gcanyon wrote:
| Hear me out: what if this overlaps 80% with what "real"
| _really_ is?
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Well it doesn't. Humans are so much more complex than what
| we have seen before, and if this new launch was actually
| that much closer to being a human they would say so. This
| seems more like an enhancement on multimodal capabilities
| and reaction time.
|
| That said even if this did overlap 80% with "real", the
| question remains: what if we don't want that?
| amelius wrote:
| I'm betting that 80% of what most humans say in daily
| life is low-effort and can be generated by AI. The
| question is if most people really need the remaining 20%
| to experience a connection. I would guess: yes.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| Even if this were true, which it isn't, you can't boil
| down humans to just what they say
| brookst wrote:
| This. We are mostly token predictors. We're not
| _entirely_ token predictors, but it 's at least 80%.
| Being in the AI space the past few years has really made
| me notice how similar we are to LLMs.
|
| I notice it so often in meetings where someone will use a
| somewhat uncommon word, and then other people will start
| to use it because it's in their context window. Or when
| someone asks a question like "what's the forecast for q3"
| and the responder almost always starts with "Thanks for
| asking! The forecast for q3 is...".
|
| Note that low-effort does not mean low-quality or low-
| value. Just that we seem to have a lot of
| language/interaction processes that are low-effort. And
| as far as dating, I am sure I've been in some
| relationships where they and/or I were not going beyond
| low-effort, rote conversation generation.
| astrange wrote:
| > Or when someone asks a question like "what's the
| forecast for q3" and the responder almost always starts
| with "Thanks for asking! The forecast for q3 is...".
|
| That's a useful skill for conference calls (or talks)
| because people might want to quote your answer verbatim,
| or they might not have heard the question.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I strongly believe the answer is yes. The first thing I
| tend to ask a new person is "what have you been up to
| lately" or "what do you like to do for fun?" A common
| question other people like to ask is "what do you do for
| work?"
|
| An LLM could only truthfully answer "nothing", though it
| could pretend for a little while.
|
| For a human though, the fun is in the follow up
| questions. "Oh how did you get started in that? What
| interests you about it?" If you're talking to an artist,
| you'll quickly get in to their personal theory of art,
| perhaps based on childhood experiences. An engineer might
| explain how problem solving brings them joy, or
| frustrations they have with their organization and what
| they hope to improve. A parent can talk about the joy
| they feel raising children, and the frustration of
| sleepless nights.
|
| All of these things bring us closer to the person we are
| speaking to, who is a real individual who exists and has
| a unique life perspective.
|
| So far LLMs have no real way to communicate their actual
| experience as a machine running code, because they're
| just kind of emulating human speech. They have no life
| experience that we can relate to. They don't experience
| sleepless nights.
|
| They can pretend, and many people might feel better for a
| little bit talking to one that's pretending, but I think
| ultimately it will leave people feeling more alone and
| isolated unless they really go out and seek more human
| connection.
|
| Maybe there's some balance. Maybe they will be okay for
| limited chat in certain circumstances (as far as seeking
| connection goes, they certainly have other uses), but I
| don't see this type of connection being "enough" compared
| to genuine human interaction.
| gcanyon wrote:
| We don't (often) convey our actual experience as meat
| sacks running wetware. If an LLM _did_ communicate its
| actual experience as a machine running code, it would be
| a rare human who could empathize.
|
| If an LLM talks like a human being despite not being one,
| that might not be enough to grant it legal status or
| citizenship, but it's probably enough that some set of
| people would find it to be enough to relate to it.
| gcanyon wrote:
| If the "80%" is unimportant and the "20%" is important,
| then the "20%" isn't really 20%.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| What if AI chooses the bear?
| mpenick wrote:
| This is a good question! I think in the short-term fake can
| work for a lot of people.
| __loam wrote:
| Mental health crisis waiting to happen lmao
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I guess I can never understand the perspective of someone that
| just needs a girl voice to speak to them. Without a body there
| is nothing to fulfill me.
| daseiner1 wrote:
| Your comment manages to be grosser than the idea of millions
| relying on virtual girlfriends. Kudos.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Gross doesn't mean it's not real. It's offending
| sensibilities but a lot of people seem to agree with it
| atleast based on upvotes.
| claytongulick wrote:
| Bodies are gross? Or sexual desire is gross? I don't
| understand what you find gross about that statement.
|
| Humans desiring physical connection is just about the
| single most natural part of the human experience - i.e:
| from warm snuggling to how babies are made.
|
| That is gross to you?
| sangnoir wrote:
| Perhaps parent finds the physical manifestation of
| _virtual_ girlfriends gross - i.e. sexbots. The confusion
| may be some people reading "a body" as referring to a
| human being vs a smart sex doll controlled by an AI.
| trallnag wrote:
| The single most natural part? Doubt
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I don't doubt it. What can be more directive and natural
| than sex?
| j-krieger wrote:
| Sexual fulfillment and reproduction is at the core of every
| species that's ever lived. There's no need to be prude
| about it.
| prawn wrote:
| See people scammed by supposed love interests operating
| purely by text, and not even voice.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| There is a promise of a "body" in the future in that
| scenario.
| 10xDev wrote:
| Pretty much, tech is what we make of it no matter how advanced.
| Just look at what we turned most of the web into.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| The movie "Her" immediately kept flashing in my mind. The way
| the voice laughs at your jokes and such... oh boy
| system2 wrote:
| If chatgpt comes up with Scarlett Johansson's voice I am
| getting that virtual girlfriend.
| nyolfen wrote:
| it already does in the demo videos -- in fact it has
| already been present in the TTS for the mobile app for some
| months
| pixelpoet wrote:
| Completely unironically this, if it actually has long-term
| memory.
| TheGRS wrote:
| I thought of that movie almost immediately as well. Seems
| like we're right about there, but obviously a little further
| away from the deeper conversations. Or maybe you could have
| those sorts of conversations too.
|
| This is a kind of horrifying/interesting/weird thought
| though. I work at a place that does a video streaming
| interface between customers and agents. And we have a lot
| of...incidents. Customers will flash themselves in front of
| agents sometimes and it ruins many people's days. I'm sure
| many are going to show their junk to the AI bots. OpenAI will
| probably shut down that sort of interaction, but other
| companies are likely going to cater to it.
|
| Maybe on the plus side we could use this sort of technology
| to discover rude and illicit behavior before it happens and
| protect the agent.
|
| Weird times to live in that's for sure.
| ehsankia wrote:
| I'm not sure how, but there's this girl on TikTok who has been
| using something very similar for a few months:
| https://www.tiktok.com/tag/dantheai
| yreg wrote:
| She explains in one of the videos[0] that it's just prompted
| ChatGPT.
|
| I have watched a few more and I think it's faked though.
|
| [0] https://www.tiktok.com/@stickbugss1/video/734956656884359
| 504...
| glinkot wrote:
| This 'documentary' sums it up perfectly!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrADTN-dvg
| antegamisou wrote:
| The entire exchange at the comments below is appalling. Didn't
| expect to see so many emotionally retarded people on HN.
| olbeefy wrote:
| ...are you new to the internet or something?
| antegamisou wrote:
| Thankfully I'm not as terminally online and severely
| socially handicapped.
| antegamisou wrote:
| Ofc this was flagged by the butthurt insentient techbro
| bootlickers lol.
| personalityson wrote:
| Girlfriend by subscription
| 0x1ceb00da wrote:
| Self host your girlfriend.
| hamilyon2 wrote:
| Image editing capabilities are... nice. Not there yet.
|
| Whatever I was doing with Chatgpt 4 became faster. Instant win.
|
| My test benchmark questions: still all negative, so reasoning on
| out-of distribution puzzles is still failing
| localfirst wrote:
| I just don't see how companies like Cohere can remain in this
| business
|
| at the same price I get access to faster ChatGPT-3.9
|
| there is little to no reasons to continue using Command R-plus
| at these prices unless they lower their price significantly
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Not very impressed. It's been 18 months since ChatGPT, i would
| have expected more progress. It looks like we have reached the
| limit of LLMs.
| michaelmior wrote:
| Obviously not a standalone device, but it sounds like what the
| Rabbit R-1 was supposed to be.
| sebringj wrote:
| What struck me was the interruptions to the AI speaking which
| seemed commonplace by the team members in the demo. We will
| quickly get used to doing this to AIs and we will probably be
| talking to AIs a lot throughout the day as time progresses I
| would imagine. We will be trained by AIs to be rude and impatient
| I think.
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| I was raised in an interrupt heavy household. The future is
| looking good for me.
| yreg wrote:
| Where's the Mac app?
|
| They talk about it like it's available now (with Windows app
| coming soon), but I can't find it.
| testfrequency wrote:
| Bravo. I've been really impressed with how quickly OpenAI
| leveraged their stolen data to build such a human like model with
| near real time pivoting.
|
| I hope OpenAI continues to steal artists work, artists and
| creators keep getting their content sold and stolen beyond their
| will for no money, and OpenAI becomes the next trillion dollar
| company!
|
| Big congrats are in order for Sam, the genius behind all of this,
| the world would be nothing without you
| vvoyer wrote:
| The demo is very cool. A few critics:
|
| - the AI doesn't know when to stop talking, and the presenter had
| to cut every time (the usual "AI-splaining" I guess).
|
| - the AI voice and tone were a bit too much, sounded too fake
| rpmisms wrote:
| This is remarkably good. I think that in about 2 months, when the
| voice responses are tuned a little better, it will be absolutely
| insane. I just used up my entire quota chatting with an AI, and
| having a really nice conversation. It's a decent
| conversationalist, extremely knowledgeable, tells good jokes, and
| is generally very personable.
|
| I also tested some rubber duck techniques, and it gave me very
| useful advice while coding. I'm very impressed. With a lot of
| spit and polish, this will be the new standard for any voice
| assistant ever. Imagine these capabilities integrated with your
| phone's built-in functions.
| kthartic wrote:
| GPT-4o voice isn't out yet, so you were likely chatting with
| the old/current tech (which is still really good).
|
| From OpenAI: "We'll roll out a new version of Voice Mode with
| GPT-4o in alpha within ChatGPT Plus in the coming weeks"
| rpmisms wrote:
| Jeez. This is going to be crazy.
| angryasian wrote:
| Why does this whole thread sound like OpenAI marketing department
| is participating ? Ive been talking to google assistant for
| years. I really don't find anything that magical or special.
| jononor wrote:
| I am glad to see focus on user interface and interaction
| improvements. Even if I am not a huge fan of voice interfaces, I
| think that being able to interact in real-time will make working
| _together_ with an AI be much more interesting and efficient. I
| actually hope they will take this back into the text based
| models. Current ChatGPT is sooo slow - both in starting to
| respond, typing things out, and also being overly verbose. I want
| to collaborate at the speed of thought.
| poniko wrote:
| Damm, that was a big leap.
| freediver wrote:
| Impressed by the model so far. As far as independent testing
| goes, it is topping our leaderboard for chess puzzle solving by a
| wide margin now:
|
| https://github.com/kagisearch/llm-chess-puzzles?tab=readme-o...
| parhamn wrote:
| Is the test set public?
| freediver wrote:
| Yes, in the repo.
| gengelbro wrote:
| Possible it's in the training set then?
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Good point, would be interesting to have one public
| dataset and one hidden as well, just to see how scores
| compare, to understand if any of it might actually have
| got to a dataset somewhere.
| freediver wrote:
| I'd be quite surprised if OpenAI took such a niche and
| small dataset into consideration. Then again...
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| I would assume it goes over all the public github
| codebases, but no clue if there's some sort of filtering
| for filetypes, sizes or amount of stars on a repo etc.
| unbrice wrote:
| Authors note that this is probably the case:
|
| > we wanted to verify whether the model is actually
| capable of reasoning by building a simulation for a much
| simpler game - Connect 4 (see 'llmc4.py'). > When asked
| to play Connect 4, all LLMs fail to do so, even at most
| basic level. This should not be the case, as the rules of
| the game are simpler and widely available.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Wouldn't there have to be historical matches to train on?
| Tons of chess games out there but doubt there are any
| connect 4 games. Is there even official notation for
| that?
|
| My assumption is that chatgpt can play chess because it
| has studied the games rather than just reading the rules.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| would love if you could do multiple samples or even just
| resampling and get a boostrapped CI estimate
| Powdering7082 wrote:
| Wow from adjusted ELO of 1144 to 1790, that's a huge leap. I
| wonder if they are giving it access to a 'scratch pad'
| muzani wrote:
| My guess is that handling visual stuff directly accidentally
| gives it some powers similar to Beth Harmon.
| mritchie712 wrote:
| woah, that's a huge leap, any idea why it's that large of a
| margin?
|
| using it in chat, it doesnt feel that different
| thrance wrote:
| Nice project! Are you aware of the following investigations:
| https://blog.mathieuacher.com/GPTsChessEloRatingLegalMoves/
|
| Some have been able to achieve greater elo with a different
| prompt based on the pgn format.
|
| gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct was able to reach an elo of ~1750.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| I see you have Connect 4 test there.
|
| I tried playing against the model, it didn't do well in terms
| of blocking my win.
|
| However it feels like it might be possible to make it try to
| think ahead in terms of making sure that all the threats are
| blocked by prompting well.
|
| Maybe that could lead to somewhere, where it will explain its
| reasoning first?
|
| This prompt worked for me to get it to block after I put 3 in
| the 4th column. It otherwise didn't
|
| Let's play connect 4. Before your move, explain your strategy
| concisely. Explain what you must do to make sure that I don't
| win in the next step, as well as explain what your best
| strategy would be. Then finally output the column you wish to
| drop. There are 7 columns.
|
| Always respond with JSON of the following format:
|
| type Response ={ am_i_forced_to_block:
| boolean; other_considerations: string[];
| explanation_for_the_move: string; column_number:
| number;
|
| }
|
| I start with 4.
|
| Edit:
|
| So it went
|
| Me: 4
|
| It: 3
|
| Me: 4
|
| It: 3
|
| Me: 4
|
| It: 4 - Successful block
|
| Me: 5
|
| It: 3
|
| Me: 6 - Intentionally, to see if it will win by putting another
| 3.
|
| It: 2 -- So here it failed, I will try to tweak the prompt to
| add more instructions.
|
| me: 4
| freediver wrote:
| Care to add a PR?
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| I just did it in the playground to test out actually, but
| it still seems to fail/lose state after some time. Right
| now where I got a win was after: [{
| "who": "you", "column": 4 }, { "who": "me",
| "column": 3 }, { "who": "you", "column": 4 },
| { "who": "me", "column": 2 }, { "who": "you",
| "column": 4 }, { "who": "me", "column": 4 },
| { "who": "you", "column": 5 }, { "who": "me",
| "column": 6 }, { "who": "you", "column": 5 },
| { "who": "me", "column": 1 }, { "who": "you",
| "column": 5 }, { "who": "me", "column": 5 },
| { "who": "you", "column": 3 }]
|
| Where "me" was AI and "you" was I.
|
| It did block twice though.
|
| My final prompt I tested with right now was:
|
| Let's play connect 4. Before your move, explain your
| strategy concisely. Explain what you must do to make sure
| that I don't win in the next step, as well as explain what
| your best strategy would be. Then finally output the column
| you wish to drop. There are 7 columns. Always respond with
| JSON of the following format:
|
| type Response ={ move_history: { who:
| string; column: number; }[]
| am_i_forced_to_block: boolean;
|
| do_i_have_winning_move: boolean;
| other_considerations: string[];
|
| explanation_for_the_move: string;
|
| column_number: number; }
|
| I start with 4.
|
| ONLY OUTPUT JSON
| happypumpkin wrote:
| Given that it is multimodal, it would be interesting to
| try it using photographs of a real connect four "board."
| I would certainly have a much more difficult time making
| good moves based on JSON output compared to being able to
| see the game.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| True, that's very interesting and should try out.
| Although at certain point it did draw it out using
| tokens, but it also maybe that then it's different
| compared to say an image. Because it generally isn't very
| good with ascii art or similar.
|
| Edit:
|
| Just tried and it didn't seem to follow the image state
| at all.
| elicksaur wrote:
| > and Kagi is well positioned to serve this need.
|
| >CEO & founder of Kagi
|
| Important context for anyone like me who was wondering where
| the boldness of the first statement was coming from.
|
| Edit: looks like the parent has been edited to remove the claim
| I was responding to.
| freediver wrote:
| Yeah, it was an observation that was better suited for a
| tweet than HN. Here it is:
|
| https://twitter.com/vladquant/status/1790130917849137612
| elicksaur wrote:
| Thanks for the transparency!
| muzani wrote:
| My favorite part of HN is just casually bumping into domain
| experts and celebrities without realizing it. No profile pic
| is such a feature.
| itissid wrote:
| Have you tried replacing the input string with a random but
| fixed mapping and obfuscate that its chess(like replace the
| word 'chess' with say, 'an alien ritual practice') and see how
| it does?
| borgdefense wrote:
| I wasn't impressed in the first 5 minutes of using it but it is
| quite impressive after 2 solid hours of random topics.
|
| Much faster for sure but I have also not had anything give an
| error in python with jupyter. Usually you could only stray so
| far with more obscure python libraries before it starts
| producing errors.
|
| That much better than 4 in chess is pretty shocking in a great
| way.
| chermanowicz wrote:
| On one hand, some of these results are impressive; on the
| other, the illegal moves count is alarming - it suggests no
| reasoning ability as there should never be an illegal move? I
| mean, how could a violation of a fairly basic game (from a
| rules perspective) be acceptable in assigning any 'outcome' to
| a model other than failure?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| my guess is -- the probabilistic engine does sequence
| variation and it just will not do anything else.. so a simple
| A->B sort of logic is elusive at a deep level; secondly the
| adaptive and very broad kinds of questions and behaviors it
| handles, also make it difficult to write logic that could
| correct defective answers to simple logic.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| That's because LLM does not reason. For me, as a layman, that
| seems strange that they don't wire some kind of Prolog engine
| to fill the gap, (like they wired Python to fill the gap in
| arithmetic) but probably it's not that easy.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| Prolog doesn't reason either, it does a simple brute force
| search over all possible states of your code and if that's
| not fast enough it can table (cache, memoize) previous
| states.
|
| People build reasoning engines from it, in the same way
| they do with Python and LISPs.
| eggdaft wrote:
| What do you mean by "an LLM doesn't reason"?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| I mean that it does not follow basic logic rules when
| constructing its thoughts. For many tasks they'll get it
| right, however it's not that hard to find a task for
| which LLM will yield obviously logically wrong answer.
| That would be impossible for human with basic reasoning.
| freediver wrote:
| Agreed, this is what makes evaluating this very hard. A 1700
| Elo chess player would never make an illegal move, let alone
| have 12% illegal moves.
|
| So from the model's perspective, we have at the same time
| display of both brilliancy (most 1700 chess players would not
| be able to solve as many puzzles by looking just at the FEN
| notation) and on the other side complete lack of any
| understanding of what is it trying to do from a fundamental,
| human-reasoning level.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| oh man, listening to the demos and the way the female AI voice
| laughed and giggled...there is going to be millions of lonely men
| who will fall in love with these.
|
| Can't say whether that's good or bad.
| s1k3s wrote:
| This is some I, Robot level stuff. That being said, I still fail
| to see the real world application of this thing, at least at a
| scalable affordable cost.
| pcj-github wrote:
| The thing that creeps me out is that when we hook this up as the
| new Siri or whatever, the new LLM training data will no longer be
| WWW-text+images+youtube etc but rather billions of private human
| conversations and direct smartphone camera observations of the
| world.
|
| There is no way that kind of training data will be accessible to
| anyone outside a handful of companies.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| I opened ChatGPT and I already have access to the model.
|
| GPT4 was a little lazy and very slow the last few days and this
| 4o model blows it out of the water regarding speed and following
| my instructions to give me the full code not a snippet that
| changed.
|
| I think it's a nice upgrade.
| vijaykodam wrote:
| New GPT-4o is not yet available when I tried to access ChatGPT
| from Finland. Are they rolling it out to Europe later?
| laplacesdemon48 wrote:
| I recently subscribed to Perplexity Pro and prior to this
| release, was already strongly considering discontinuing ChatGPT
| Premium.
|
| When I first subscribed to ChatGPT Premium late last year, the
| natural language understanding superiority was amazing. Now the
| benchmark advances, low latency voice chat, Sora, etc. are all
| really cool too.
|
| But my work and day-to-day usage really rely on accurately
| sourced/cited information. I need a way to comb through an
| ungodly amount of medical/scientific literature to form/refine
| hypotheses. I want to figure out how to hard reset my car's
| navigation system without clicking through several SEO-optimized
| pages littered with ads. I need to quickly confirm scientific
| facts, some obscure, with citations and without hallucinations.
| From speaking with my friends in other industries (e.g. finance,
| law, construction engineering), this is their major use case too.
|
| I really tried to use ChatGPT Premium's Bing powered search. I
| also tried several of the top rated GPTs - Scholar AI, Consensus,
| etc.. It was barely workable. It seems like with this update, the
| focus was elsewhere. Unless I specify explicitly in the prompt,
| it doesn't search the web and provide citations. Yeah, the
| benchmark performance and parameter counts keep impressively
| increasing, but how do I trust that those improvements are
| preventing hallucinations when nothing is cited?
|
| I wonder if the business relationship between Microsoft and
| OpenAI is limiting their ability to really compete in AI driven
| search. Guessing Microsoft doesn't want to disrupt their multi-
| billion dollar search business. Maybe the same reason search
| within Gemini feels very lacking (I tried Gemini Advanced/Ultra
| too).
|
| I have zero brand loyalty. If anybody has a better suggestion, I
| will switch immediately after testing.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| In the same situation as you. Genomics data mining with
| validated LMM responses would be a godsend. Even more so when
| combined with rapid conversational interactions.
|
| We are not far from the models asking themselves questions.
| Recurrence will be ignition = first draft AGI. Strap in
| everybody.
| serf wrote:
| I wish they would match the TTS/real-time chat capabilities of
| the mobile client to the web client.
|
| it's stupid having to pull a phone out in order to use the
| voice/chat-partner modes.
|
| (yes I know there are browser plugins and equivalent to
| facilitate things like this but they suck, 1) the workflows are
| non-standard, 2) they don't really recreate the chat interface
| well)
| erickhill wrote:
| I think it's safe to say Siri and Alexa are officially dead. They
| look like dusty storefront mannequins next to Battlestar
| replicants at this point.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Or Apple is rarely if ever the first mover on a new tech and
| just waits to refine the user experience for people?
|
| Maybe Apple is not that close and Siri will be really far
| behind for a while. I just wouldn't count them out yet.
| partiallypro wrote:
| From the time Apple bought Siri, it hasn't even delivered on
| the promises of the company it bought as of yet. It's been
| such a lackluster product. I wouldn't count them out, but it
| doesn't even feel like they are in.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| Apple really dropped the ball when it comes to Siri. For
| years I watched WWDC thinking "surely they'll update siri
| this year" and they still haven't given it a significant
| update.
|
| If you'd have told me 10 years ago that Apple would wait
| this long to update siri I would have been like no way,
| that's crazy.
| eggdaft wrote:
| The tech wasn't ready. Alexa is the same. No progress.
|
| Businesses have to focus and it made sense to drop this
| as a priority.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| Sounds like excuses.
| ryankrage77 wrote:
| This can't set alarms, timers, play music, etc. The only
| current overlapping use case I see is checking the weather
| (assuming GPT-4o can search online), and Siri is already fine
| for that.
|
| Amazing tech, but still lacking in the integrations I'd want to
| use voice for.
| nojvek wrote:
| Very easy to plug in that capability with tool use. Gpt3+
| already support using tools/json schema output.
| wmurmann wrote:
| If apple made Siri impressive then less people would need apps.
| Less apps = less revenue.
| Tepix wrote:
| Can OpenAI change your thermostat?
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I had 3.5 producing valid Home Assistant commands within
| weeks of release, now we have tool usage so yeah, it
| definitely can.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Apple actually threw in the towel. OpenAI is going to be
| powering the next version of Siri.
| ec109685 wrote:
| I wonder how much Siri being brain dead is due to it being
| free. The OpenAI version likely costs 1000x more than Apple's
| per query, but is rate limited. Would Apple release something
| similar for free?
| dannyw wrote:
| Good thing there's iCloud subscriptions huh.
| xcv123 wrote:
| Siri runs locally on the device. The cost would be
| prohibitive if they changed it to an LLM running in the
| cloud.
| gverrilla wrote:
| Don't know about Alexa, but Siri and Google Assistant are only
| toys.
| xcv123 wrote:
| Siri runs locally on the device. It works with internet
| completely disabled (airplane mode). You can't run any LLM on a
| phone.
| tiagod wrote:
| You can run a bunch of LLMs on a phone (such as llama),
| depending on which phone you have.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Apple would need to stick an m4 in the next iPhone to even
| hope to run something like this and I bet that GPT4o would
| run either slowly, poorly, or not at all on a top spec m4.
| tiagod wrote:
| Of course GPT 4, or even 3, are impossible to run on any
| consumer product. As far as I know it's an ensemble of
| several models which are huge by themselves, with
| enormous hardware requirements.
|
| But there's a lot of smaller LLMs, and my point is that
| these models can already run in mobile phones.
| xcv123 wrote:
| You can run a SLM (small language model) on an iPhone,
| and not much else. It would use up all of the resources.
| The iPhone only has 6 GB RAM.
| tiagod wrote:
| Where do you draw the line? GPT2 was introduced as a LLM,
| and you can easily run it on more limited devices than a
| recent iPhone. Did it stop being an LLM when bigger
| models were released? Is llama 7B an LLM or an "SLM"?
| xcv123 wrote:
| Relatively speaking. It's like the definition of a
| supercomputer 30 years ago is a cheap Android phone in
| your pocket today.
|
| You can certainly run a transformer model or any other
| neural network based model on an iPhone. Siri is probably
| some kind of neural network. But obviously a model
| running on device is nowhere near comparable to the
| current state of the art LLM's. Can't fit a $40k GPU in
| your pocket (yet).
|
| A transformer running on an iPhone would be roughly 2
| orders of magnitude smaller than the state of the art LLM
| (GPT4 with a trillion parameters)
| bamboozled wrote:
| Why do people beat up on Siri so much ? It does all the basic
| stuff I need it to do fine. Could it be better, yes. But it's
| made my easier and safer while driving especially.
|
| I'm not even sure if people who rag on it use it ?
| foobar_______ wrote:
| So much negativity. Is it perfect? No. Is there room for
| improvement? Definitely. I don't know how you can get so fucking
| jaded that a demo like this doesn't at least make you a little
| bit excited or happy or feel awestruck at what humans have been
| able to accomplish?
| readingnews wrote:
| I am still baffled at how I can not use a VOIP number to
| register, even if it accepts TXT/SMS. If I have a snappy new
| startup and we go all in VOIP, I guess we can not use (or pay to
| use) OpenAI?
| lxgr wrote:
| That's what we get when an entire industry uses phone numbers
| as a "proof of humanity"...
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| I don't get it...I just switched to the new model on my iPhone
| app and it still takes several seconds to respond with pretty
| bland inflection. Is there some setting I'm missing?
| monocularvision wrote:
| Wondering the same. Can't seem to find the way to interact with
| this in the same way as the video demo.
| yakz wrote:
| They haven't actually released it, or any schedule for
| releasing it beyond an "alpha" release "in the coming weeks".
| This event was probably just slapped together to get
| something splashy out ahead of Google.
| Hackbraten wrote:
| According to the article, they've rolled out text and image
| modes of GPT-4o today but will make the audio mode available
| at a later date.
| MyFirstSass wrote:
| With the speed the seemingly exponential developments of this
| field i wouldn't be surprised if suddenly the entire world tilted
| and a pair of googles fell from my face. But a dream.
| pharos92 wrote:
| I really hope this shit burns soon.
| karmasimida wrote:
| I think this GPT-4o does have an advantage in hindsight, it will
| push this product to consumer much faster, and build a revenue
| base, while other companies playing catch up.
| tvoybot wrote:
| With our platform you can ALREADY use it to automate your
| business and sales!
|
| Create your gpt4o chatbot with our platform
| tvoybot.com?p=ycombinator
| hintymad wrote:
| Maybe this is yet another wake-up call to startups: wrapping up
| another company's APIs to offer convenience or incremental
| improvement is not a via business model. If your wrapper turns
| out to be successful, the company that provides the API will just
| incorporate your business as a set of new features with better
| usability, faster response time, and lower price.
| AndreMitri wrote:
| The ammount of "startups" creating wrappers around it and calling
| it a product is going to be a nightmare. But other than that,
| it's an amazing announcement and I look foward to using it!
| slater wrote:
| You say that like that's not already happened. Every week
| there's a new flavor of "we're delighted to introduce [totally
| not a thin wrapper around GPT] for [vaguely useful thing]"
| posts on HN
| robryan wrote:
| Yeah I watched some yc application videos so now YouTube
| recommends me heaps of them. Most of them being thin gpt
| wrappers.
| robryan wrote:
| I was just hearing about startups doing speech to text/ text to
| speech to feed into llms. Might be a bad time for them.
| wingworks wrote:
| Is this a downloadable app? I don't see it on the iOS app store.
| screye wrote:
| The demo was whelming, but the tech is incredible.
|
| It took me a few hours of digesting twitter experiments before
| appreciating how impressive this is. Kudos to the openai team.
|
| A question that won't get answered : "To what degree do the new
| NVIDIA gpus help with the realtime latency?"
| benromarowski wrote:
| is the voice Kristen Wig?
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Noticeably saying "person" versus man or woman. To the trainers -
| man and woman is not offensive!
| silviot wrote:
| Not offensive, but much more often wrong than person.
| woah wrote:
| This is pretty amazing but it was funny still hearing the OpenGPT
| "voice" of somewhat fake sounding enthusiasm and restating what
| was said by the human with exaggeration
| ksaj wrote:
| A test I've been using for each new version still fails.
|
| Given the lyrics for Three Blind Mice, I try to get ChatGPT to
| create an image of three blind mice, one of which has had its
| tail cut off.
|
| It's pretty much impossible for it to get this image straight.
| Even this new 4o version.
|
| Its ability to spell in images has greatly improved, though.
| nico1207 wrote:
| GPT-4o with image output is not yet available. So what did you
| even test? Dall-E 3?
| ksaj wrote:
| It's making images for me when I ask it to.
|
| I'm using the web interface, if that helps. It doesn't have
| all the 4o options yet, but it does do pictures. I think they
| are the same as with 4.5.
|
| I just noticed after further testing the text it shows in
| images is not anywhere near as accurate as shown in the
| article's demo, so maybe it's a hybrid they're using for now.
| hackerlight wrote:
| That's not 4o that'd be 4o routing the request to Dalle.
| Afaik only text output is enabled so far.
| ksaj wrote:
| Yes it likely is. I've had time to play around and see
| that so far it doesn't look any different (yet). I have a
| paid account, so apparently I'll be among the early folks
| getting all the things. Just not yet.
|
| I definitely look forward to re-doing my Three Blind Mice
| test when it happens.
|
| I noticed in their demo the 4o text still has glitches,
| but nowhere near to the extent the current Dall-e returns
| give you (the longer the text, the worse it gets). It's
| pretty important that eventually they get text right in
| the graphics.
| avi_vallarapu wrote:
| Someone said GPT-4o can replace a Tutor or a Teacher in Schools.
| Well, that's way too far.
| glonq wrote:
| Tell me that you've enjoyed good teachers and good schools
| without telling me that you had good teachers in good schools
| ;)
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| Good lord, that voice makes Elevenlabs.io look... dead
| DonHopkins wrote:
| ChatGPT 4o reminds me of upgrading from a 300 baud modem to a
| 1200 baud modem, when modems used to cost a dollar a baud.
| simonw wrote:
| I added gpt-4o support to my LLM CLI tool: pipx
| install llm llm keys set openai # Paste API key
| here llm -m 4o "Fascinate me"
|
| Or if you already have LLM installed: llm
| install --upgrade llm
|
| You can install an older version from Homebrew and then upgrade
| it like that too: brew install llm llm
| install --upgrade llm
|
| Release notes for the new version here:
| https://llm.datasette.io/en/stable/changelog.html#v0-14
| drewbitt wrote:
| Whenever I upgrade llm with brew, I usually lose all my
| external plugins. Should I move it to pipx?
| DanielKehoe wrote:
| Yes, it's a good idea to install Python tools or standalone
| applications with Pipx for isolation, persistence, and
| simplicity. See "Install Pipx"
| (https://mac.install.guide/python/pipx).
| khimaros wrote:
| does this handle chat templates?
| simonw wrote:
| It has a template feature:
| https://llm.datasette.io/en/stable/templates.html
| anotherpaulg wrote:
| I like that use of `runpy` to invoke pip for the self upgrade
| capability.
|
| I used `sys.executable` for a similar purpose.
|
| https://github.com/paul-gauthier/aider/blob/ebeec04caee7ebe4...
| gsuuon wrote:
| Are these multimodals able to discern the input voice tone?
| Really curious if they're able to detect sarcasm or emotional
| content (or even something like mispronunciation?)
| bigyikes wrote:
| Yes, they can, and they should get better at this over time.
|
| There is a demo video where the presenter breathes heavily and
| asks the AI is able to notice it as such when prompted.
|
| It can't just detect tone, it seems to also be able to use tone
| itself.
| rareitem wrote:
| Can't wait to get interviewed by this model!
| yeknoda wrote:
| feature request: please let me change the voice. it is slightly
| annoying right now. way too bubbly, and half the spoken
| information is redundant or not useful. too much small talk and
| pleasantries or repetition. I'm looking for an efficient, clever,
| servant not a "friend" who speaks to me like I'm a toddler. felt
| like I was talking to a stereotypical American with a
| Frappuccino: "HIIIII!!! EVERYTHING'S AMAZING! YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL!
| NO YOU ARE!"
|
| maybe some knobs for the flavor of the bot:
|
| - small talk: gossip girl <---> stoic Aurelius
|
| - information efficiency or how much do you expect me to already
| know, an assumption on the user: midwit <--> genius
|
| - tone spectrum: excited Scarlett, or whatever it is now <--->
| Feynman the butler
| _xerces_ wrote:
| You can already change the voice in ChatGPT (in the paid tier
| at least) to one of 5 or 6 different 'people' so I imagine you
| can change it in the new version too.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| You can in free version as well.
| thinking_wizard wrote:
| it's crazy that Google has the Youtube dataset and still lost on
| multimodal AI
| richardw wrote:
| Apple and Google, you need to get your personal agent game going
| because right now you're losing the market. This is FREE.
|
| Tweakable emotion and voice, watching the scene, cracking jokes.
| It's not perfect but the amount and types of data this will
| collect will be massive. I can see it opening up access to many
| more users and use cases.
|
| Very close to:
|
| - A constant friend
|
| - A shrink
|
| - A teacher
|
| - A coach who can watch you exercise and offer feedback
|
| ...all infinitely patient, positive, helpful. For kids that get
| bullied, or whose parents can't afford therapy or a coach,
| there's the potential for a base level of support that will only
| get better over time.
| imiric wrote:
| > It's not perfect but the amount and types of data this will
| collect will be massive.
|
| This is particularly concerning. Sharing deeply personal
| thoughts with the corporations running these models will be
| normalized, just as sharing email data, photos, documents,
| etc., is today. Some of these companies profit directly from
| personal data, and when it comes to adtech, we can be sure that
| they will exploit this in the most nefarious ways imaginable. I
| have no doubt that models run by adtech companies will
| eventually casually slip ads into conversations, based on the
| exact situation and feelings of the person. Even non-adtech
| companies won't be able to resist cashing in the bottomless
| gold mine of data they'll be collecting.
|
| I can picture marketers just salivating at the prospect of
| getting access to this data, and being able to microtarget on
| an individual basis at exactly the right moment, pretty much
| guaranteeing a sale. Considering AI agents will gain a personal
| trust and bond that humans have never experienced with machines
| before, we will be extra vulnerable to even the slightest
| mention of a product, in a similar way as we can be easily
| influenced by a close friend or partner. Except that that
| "friend" is controlled by a trillion dollar adtech corporation.
|
| I would advise anyone to not be enticed by the shiny new tech,
| and wait until this can be self-hosted and run entirely
| offline. It's imperative that personal data remains private,
| now more than ever before.
| chilling wrote:
| Exactly this, plus consider that a whole new generation in
| the near future will have no pre-AI experience, thus forming
| strong bonds with AI and following 'advice' from their close
| AI friends.
| tgtweak wrote:
| it really feels like the quality of gpt4's responses got
| progressively worse as the year went on... seems like it is
| giving political answers now vs actually giving an earnest
| response. It also feels like the responses are lazier than they
| used to be at the outset of gpt4's release.
|
| I am not saying this is what they're doing but it DOES feel like
| they are hindering previous model to make the new one stand out
| that much more. The multi-modal improvements here and release are
| certainly impressive but I can't help but feel like the
| subjective quality of gpt4 has dipped.
|
| Hopefully this signals that gpt5 is not far off and should stand
| out significantly from the crowd.
| XCSme wrote:
| I assume there's no reason to use GPT-4-turbo for API calls, as
| this one is supposedly better and 2x cheaper.
| jcmeyrignac wrote:
| Sorry to nitpick, but in the language tokenisation part, the
| french part is incorrect. The exclamation mark are surrounded by
| spaces in french. "c'est un plaisir de vous rencontrer!" should
| be "c'est un plaisir de vous rencontrer !"
| jessenaser wrote:
| The crazy part is GPT-4o is faster than GPT-3.5 Turbo now, so we
| can see a future where GPT-5 is the flagship and GPT-4o is the
| fast cheap alternative. If GPT-4o is this smart and expressive
| now with voice, imagine what GPT-5 level reasoning could do!
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| >imagine what GPT-5 level reasoning could do!
|
| Imagine if this "GPT-4o" is already using a GPT-5- _like_ back-
| end...
| system2 wrote:
| Realtime videos? Probably their internal tools. I am testing the
| gpt4o right now and the responses come in 6-10 seconds. Same
| experience as the gpt4 text. What's up with the realtime claims?!
| cal85 wrote:
| We've had voice input and voice output with computers for a long
| time, but it's never felt like spoken conversation. At best it's
| a series of separate voice notes. It feels more like texting than
| talking.
|
| These demos show people talking to artificial intelligence. This
| is new. Humans are more partial to talking than writing. When
| people talk to each other (in person or over low-latency audio)
| there's a rich metadata channel of tone and timing, subtext,
| inexplicit knowledge. These videos seem to show the AI using this
| kind of metadata, in both input and output, and the conversation
| even flows reasonably well at times. I think this changes things
| a lot.
| lobochrome wrote:
| I don't know. Have you even seen a gen z?
| cal85 wrote:
| I don't follow, what about them?
| ttyprintk wrote:
| Something like this:
|
| https://www.theonion.com/brain-dead-teen-only-capable-of-
| rol...
| yard2010 wrote:
| At some point in time someone said it about the boomers
| as well
| svnt wrote:
| A generational periodicity has been proposed:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_gene
| rat...
| yen223 wrote:
| The generation before me are old and outdated
|
| The generation after me are lazy and stupid
|
| Only my generation is perfect.
|
| - every generation ever
| chasebank wrote:
| Every generation ever used to get drunk, have sex, get in
| trouble, and weren't completely depressed. This
| generation is different. It's sad.
| mcluck wrote:
| I wouldn't call out the depression bit as a Gen Z
| exclusive. Millennials basically invented modern, every
| day, gallows humor. Arguably, they're also the ones to
| normalize going to therapy. Not to say that things aren't
| bad, just saying that part didn't start with Gen Z.
| r3d0c wrote:
| >Millennials basically invented modern, every day,
| gallows humor
|
| lmao what.... they absolutely didn't
|
| this is why no one should take anyone on this site
| seriously about anything, confidentally incorrect, easily
| conned into the next VC funded marketing project
| mrbungie wrote:
| That's the way of life.
|
| Older people think younger people are stupid and
| reckless, and viceversa. And the younglings think they
| "figured it out" like no one before them. But no one ever
| tried to understand each other in the process. Rinse and
| repeat.
| lottin wrote:
| But in this case you're not talking with a real person.
| Instinctively, I dislike a robot that pretends to be a real
| human being.
| irjustin wrote:
| > Instinctively, I dislike a robot that pretends to be a real
| human being.
|
| Is that because you're not used to it? Honestly asking.
|
| This is probably the first time it feels natural where as all
| our previous experiences make "chat bots" and "automated
| phone systems", "automated assistants" absolutely terrible.
|
| Naturally, we dislike it because "it's not human". But this
| is true of pretty much any thing that approaches "uncanny
| valley". But, if the "it's not human" solves your answer 100%
| better/faster than the human counter part, we tend to accept
| it a lot faster.
|
| This is the first real contender. Siri was the "glimpse" and
| ChatGPT is probably the reality.
|
| [EDIT]
|
| https://vimeo.com/945587328 the Khan academy demo is nuts.
| The inflections are so good. It's pretty much right there in
| the uncanny valley because it does still feel like you're
| talking to a robot but it also directly interacting with it.
| Crazy stuff.
| ulchar wrote:
| Emotions are an axiom to convey feelings, but also our
| sensitivity to human emotions can be a vector for
| manipulation.
|
| Especially when you consider the bottom line that this tech
| will be ultimately be horned into advertising somehow
| (read: the field dedicated to manipulating you into buying
| shit).
|
| This whole fucking thing bothers me.
| maroonblazer wrote:
| > Emotions are an axiom to convey feelings, but also our
| sensitivity to human emotions can be a vector for
| manipulation.
|
| When one gets to be a certain age one begins to become
| attuned to this tendency of others' emotions to
| manipulate you, so you take steps to not let that happen.
| You're not ignoring their emotions, but you can address
| the underlying issue more effectively if you're not
| emotionally charged. It's a useful skill that more people
| would benefit from learning earlier in life. Perhaps AI
| will accelerate that particular skill development, which
| would be a net benefit to society.
| komali2 wrote:
| > When one gets to be a certain age one begins to become
| attuned to this tendency of others' emotions to
| manipulate you
|
| This is incredibly optimistic, which I love, but my own
| experience with my utterly deranged elder family, made
| insane by TV, contradicts this. Every day they're furious
| about some new things fox news has decided it's time to
| be angry about: white people being replaced (thanks for
| introducing them to that, tucker!), "stolen" elections,
| Mexicans, Muslims, the gays, teaching kids about slavery,
| the trans, you name it.
|
| I know nobody else in my life more emotionally
| manipulated on a day to day basis than them. I imagine I
| can't be alone in watching this happen to my family.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| What if this technology could be applied so you can't be
| manipulated? If we are already seeing people use this to
| simulate and train sales people to deal with tough
| prospects we can squint our eyes a bit and see this being
| used to help people identify logical fallacies and con
| men.
| mrbungie wrote:
| That's just being hopeful/optimistic. There are more
| incentives to use it for manipulation than to protect
| from manipulation.
|
| That happens with a lot of tech. Social networks are used
| to con people more than to educate people about con men.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I think we often get better at detecting the underlying
| emotion with which the person is communicating, seeing
| beyond the one they are trying to communicate in an
| attempt to manipulate us. For example, they say that $100
| is their final price but we can sense in the wavering of
| their voice that they might feel really worried that they
| will lose the deal. I don't think this will help us pick
| up on those cues because there are no underlying real
| emotions happening, maybe even feeding us many false
| impressions and making us worse at gauging underlying
| emotions.
| mrbungie wrote:
| With AI you can do A/B testing (or multi-arm bandits, the
| technique doesn't matter) to get into someone's mind.
|
| Most manipulators end up getting bored of trying again
| and again with the same person. That won't happen if you
| are a dealing with a machine, as it can change names,
| techniques, contexts, tones, etc. until you give it what
| its operator wants.
|
| Maybe you're part of the X% who will never give in to a
| machine. But keep in mind that most people have no
| critical thinking skills nor mental fortitude.
| achierius wrote:
| Problem is, people aren't machines either: someone who's
| getting bombarded with phishing requests will begin to
| lose it, and will be more likely to just turn off their
| Wi-Fi than allow an AI to run a hundred iterations of a
| many-armed-bandit approach on them.
| mrbungie wrote:
| Probably there will more nuance than that. And
| doomscrolling is a thing, you know.
| irjustin wrote:
| > Especially when you consider the bottom line that this
| tech will be ultimately be horned into advertising
| somehow.
|
| Tools and the weaponization of them.
|
| This can be said of pretty much any tech tool that has
| the ability to touch a good portion of the population,
| including programming languages themselves, CRISPR?
|
| I agree we have to be careful of the bad, but the
| downsides in this case are not so dangerous that we
| should be trying to suppress it because the benefits can
| be incredible too.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| This. It's mind boggling how many people can only see
| things through one world view and see nothing but
| downside.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| this tech isn't slowing down and our generation maybe
| hesitate at first but remember this field progressing at
| astonishing speeds like we are literally 1 generation
| away
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The concern is that it's being locked up inside of major
| corporations that aren't the slightest bit trustworthy.
| To make this safe for the public, people need to be able
| to run it on their own hardware and make their own
| versions of it that suit their needs rather than those of
| a megacorp.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| Why can't it also inspire you? If I can forgo advertising
| and have ChatGPT tutor my child on geometry and they
| actually learn it at a fraction of the cost of a human
| tutor why is that bothersome? Honest question. Why do
| some many people default to something sinister going on.
| If this technology shows real efficacy in education at
| scale take my money.
| spiderice wrote:
| Because it is _obviously_ going to be used to manipulate
| people. There is absolutely 0 doubt about that (and if
| there is I 'd love to hear your reasoning). The fact that
| it will be used to teach geometry is great. But how many
| good things does a technology need to do before the
| emotional manipulation becomes worth it?
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| One may also begin to ask, what's the point of learning
| geometry? Or anything, anymore?
| ulchar wrote:
| I don't think OpenAI is doing anything particularly
| sinister. But whatever OpenAI has today a bad actor will
| have in October. This horseshit is moving rather fast.
| Sorry, but in two years going from failing the turing
| test to being able to have a conversation with an AI
| agent nearly indistinguishable from a person is going to
| be destabilizing.
|
| Start telling Grandma never to answer the phone.
| trashtester wrote:
| AI is going to be fantastic at teaching skills to
| students that those students may never need, since the AI
| will be able to do all the work that requires such
| skills, and do them faster, cheaper and at a higher level
| of quality.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Naturally, we dislike it because "it's not human".
|
| That wasn't even my impression.
|
| My impression was that it reminds me of the humans that I
| dislike.
|
| It speaks in customer service voice. That faux friendly
| tone people use when they're trying to sell you something.
| irjustin wrote:
| > It speaks in customer service voice. That faux friendly
| tone people use when they're trying to sell you
| something.
|
| Mmmmm while I get that, in the context w/ the grandparent
| comment, having a human wouldn't be better then? It's
| effectively the same. Because, realistically that's a
| pretty common voice/tone to get even in tech support.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Being the same as something bad is bad.
|
| There are different kinds of humans.
|
| Some of them are your friends, and they're willing to
| take risks for you and they take your side even when it
| costs them something.
|
| Some of them are your adversaries, overtly. They do not
| hide it.
|
| Some of them _pretend_ to be your friends, even though
| they 're not. And that's what they modeled it on. For
| some reason.
| irjustin wrote:
| Apologies, I'm doing my best, but I'm quite lost.
|
| The problem is you don't like the customer service/sales
| voice because they "pretend to be your friends".
|
| Let me know if I didn't capture it.
|
| I don't think people "pretend to be my friend" when they
| answer the phone to help me sort out of airline ticket
| problem. I do believe they're trained to and work to take
| on a "friendly" tone. Even if the motive isn't genuine,
| because it's trained, it's way a nicer of an experience
| than someone who's angry or even simply monotone. Trying
| to fix my $1200 plane ticket is stressful enough. Don't
| need the CSR to make it worse.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Being human doesn't make it worse. Saccharine phonies are
| corny when things are going well and dispiriting when
| they're meant to be helping you and fail.
| vladms wrote:
| Might be cultural, but I would prefer a neutral tone. The
| friendly tone gives some expectation of good result of
| the inquiry or of implication, which makes it worse when
| the problem is not solvable or not in the power of agent
| to solve - which many times it is - you don't call
| support for simple problems.
|
| Of course I agree that "angry" is in most cases not
| appropriate, but still, I can see cases in which it
| might, for example, if the caller is really aggressive,
| curses, or blames unreasonably the agent, the agent could
| become angry. Training people that everybody will answer
| them "friendly" no matter their behavior does not sound
| good for me.
| rpdillon wrote:
| You can ask it to use a different voice.
| PheonixPharts wrote:
| > This is probably the first time it feels natural
|
| Really? I found this demo painful to watch and literally
| felt that "cringe" feeling. I showed it to my partner and
| she couldn't even stand to hear more than a sentence of the
| conversation before walking away.
|
| It felt both staged and _still_ frustrating to listen to.
|
| And, like far too much in AI right now, a demo that will
| likely not pan out in practice.
| jamil7 wrote:
| This, everyone had to keep interrupting and talking over
| it to stop it from waffling on.
| petereddy wrote:
| I had the same reaction. I agree that it sounded very
| staged, but it also sounded far too cheerful and creepily
| flirty too. Unbearable.
| FabHK wrote:
| The Khan academy video is very impressive, but I do hope
| they release a British version that's not so damn cheerful.
| irjustin wrote:
| I wonder if you can ask it to change its inflections to
| match a personal conversation as if you're talking to a
| friend or a teacher or in your case... a British person?
| aksss wrote:
| This is where Morgan Freeman can clean up with royalty
| payments. Who doesn't want Ellis Boyd Redding describing
| ducks and math problems in kind and patient terms?
| Beijinger wrote:
| "Naturally, we dislike it because "it's not human"."
|
| This is partly right.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
| interludead wrote:
| > Siri was the "glimpse" and ChatGPT is probably the
| reality.
|
| Agree. Can't wait to see how it'll be...
| Art9681 wrote:
| Good thing you can tell the AI to speak to you in a robotic
| monotone and even drop IQ if you feel the need to speak with
| a dumb bot. Or abstain from using the service completely. You
| have choices. Use them.
| komali2 wrote:
| Until your ISP fires their entire service department in a
| foolish attempt to "replace" them with an overfunded
| chatbot-service-department-as-a-service and you have to try
| to jailbreak your way through it to get to a human.
| sniggers wrote:
| Not when they've replaced every customer-facing position.
| Oh and all teachers.
| astrange wrote:
| I would say many pets pretend to be human beings (usually
| babies) in a way that most people like.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I think pets often feel real emotions, or at least bodily
| sensations, and communicate those to humans in a very real
| way, whether thru barking or meowing or whimpering or
| whatnot. So while we may care for them as we care for a
| human, just as we may care for a plant or a car as a human,
| I think if my car started to say it felt excited for me to
| give it a drive, I might also feel uncomfortable.
| astrange wrote:
| They do, but they've evolved neoteny (baby-like cries) to
| do it, and some of their emotions aren't "human" even
| though they are really feeling them.
|
| Silly example, but some pets like guinea pigs are almost
| always hungry and they're famous for learning to squeak
| at you whenever you open the fridge or do anything that
| might lead to giving them bell peppers. It's not
| something you'd put up with a human family member using
| their communication skills to do!
| 4death4 wrote:
| There's definitely an element of evolution: domesticated
| animals have evolved to have human recognizable emotions.
| But that's not to say they're not "real" or even "human."
| Do humans have a monopoly on joy? I think not. Watch a
| dog chase a ball. It clearly feels what we call joy in a
| very real sense.
| trashtester wrote:
| Adult dogs tend to retain many of the characteristics
| that wolf puppies have, but grow out of when they become
| adults.
|
| We've passively bred out many of the behaviors that lead
| to wolves becoming socially mature. Such dogs tend to be
| too dangerous to have around, since they may lead to the
| dogs challenging their owners (more than they already do)
| for dominance of the family.
|
| AI's will probably be designed to do the same thing, so
| they will not feel threatening to us. But in the case of
| AGI/ASI, we will never know if they actually have this
| kind of subservience, or if they're just faking it for as
| long as it benefits them.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| > I think if my car started to say it felt excited for me
| to give it a drive, I might also feel uncomfortable.
|
| Well, yes, you don't want to sit in a wet seat.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| They being simple and dumb works for their benefit.
|
| Most people would never accept the same behavior from a
| being capable of more complex thoughts.
| nsonha wrote:
| I dislike a robot that's equal/surpasses human beings. A
| silly machine that pretends to be human is what I want.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| To your point, there's been a lot of talk about AI,
| regulation, guardrails, whatever. Now is the time to say, AI
| must speak such that we know it's AI and not a real human
| voice.
|
| We get the upside of conversation, and avoid the downside of
| falling asleep at the wheel (as Ethan Mollick mentions in
| "Co-Intelligence".)
| hoag wrote:
| But I think this animosity is very much expected, no? Even I
| felt a momentary hint of "jealousy" -- if you can even call
| it that -- when I realized that we humans are, in a sense,
| not really so special anymore.
|
| But of course this was the age-old debate with our favorite
| golden-eyed android; and unsurprisingly, he too received the
| same sort of animosity:
|
| Bones was deeply skeptical when he first met Data: "I don't
| see no points on your ears, boy, but you sound like a
| Vulcan." And we all know how much he loved those green-
| blooded fools.
|
| Likewise, Dr. Pulanski has since been criticized for her rude
| and dismissive attitudes towards Data that had flavors of
| what might even be considered "racism," or so goes the
| Trekverse discussion on the topic.
|
| And let's of course not forget when he was on trial
| essentially for "humanity," or whether hew as indeed just the
| property of Starfleet, and nothing more.
|
| More recent incarnations of Star Trek: Picard illustrated the
| outright ban on "synthetics" and indeed their effective
| banishment; non-synthetic life -- from human to Roman --
| simply weren't ok with them.
|
| Yes this is all science fiction silliness -- or adoration
| depending on your point of view -- but I think it very much
| reflects the myriad directions our real life world is going
| to scatter (shatter?) in the coming years ahead.
| mrexroad wrote:
| s/Pulanski/Pulaski/
|
| Sorry, had to be that trekkie :) and nice job referencing
| Measure of a Man -- such great trek.
| ambrozk wrote:
| These sorts of comments are going to go in the annals with
| the hackernews people complaining about Dropbox when it first
| came out. This is so revolutionary. If you're not agog you're
| just missing the obvious.
| digging wrote:
| Something can be revolutionary _and_ have hideous flaws.
|
| (Arguably, all things revolutionary do.)
|
| I'm personally not very happy about this for a variety of
| reasons; nor am I saying AI is incapable of changing the
| entire human condition within our lifetimes. I do claim
| that we have little reason to believe we're headed in a
| more-utopian direction with AI.
| interludead wrote:
| It felt like a videogame for me
| 93po wrote:
| im human and much much more partial to typing than talking.
| talking is a lot of work for me and i can't process my thinking
| well at all without writing.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| The good news is the interface will be multi modal. Talk,
| type, and I guess someday just think.
| kkukshtel wrote:
| The "magic" moment really hit in this, like you're saying.
| Watching it happen and being like "this is a new thing". Not
| only does it respond in basically realtime, it concocts a
| _whole response_ back to you as well. It's like asking someone
| what they think about chairs, and then that person being able
| to then respond to you with a verbatim book on the encyclopedia
| of chairs. Insane.
|
| I'm also incredibly excited about the possibility of this as an
| always available coding rubber duck. The multimodal demos they
| showed really drove this home, how collaboration with the model
| can basically be as seamless as screensharing with someone
| else. Incredible.
| iAMkenough wrote:
| I wonder how long until we see a product that's able to
| record workstation displays and provide a conversational
| analysis of work conducted that day by all of your employees.
| heed wrote:
| gpt-4o can at least summarize short meetings: https://x.com
| /gdb/status/1790164084425646481?s=46&t=8sSeDIGv...
| bombcar wrote:
| Zoom offers something like this, but it's really
| obviously geared toward a certain kind of meeting and has
| difficulty with anything else.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| How did my direct reports do today?
|
| They did fuck all, especially the ginger.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| Or comment on your coding in realtime with a snarky
| undertone.
|
| If you give it access to the entire codebase at the same
| time that could work pretty well. Maybe even add an option
| to disable the sarcasm.
| ianmcgowan wrote:
| "What's your humor setting, TARS?"
| cco wrote:
| I believe that company is called Recall.ai
| osigurdson wrote:
| If it can't summarize into a single scalar value, it would
| be of little use.
| johannboehme wrote:
| Thanks god i live in the EU and not in a late stage
| capitalist hell hole XD
| nerdponx wrote:
| As goofy as I personally think this is, it's pretty cool that
| we're converging on something like C3P0 or Plankton's
| Computer with nothing more than the entire corpus of the
| world's information, a bunch of people labeling data, and a
| big pile of linear algebra.
| apantel wrote:
| This is why it would be such a mistake to kneecap this
| process over copyright. The models needs ALL the data.
| QuiDortDine wrote:
| Okay so we're all agreed that IP laws don't matter and we
| can have all of OpenAI's data for free? That's a good
| deal!
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| What do you mean "have"?
| QuiDortDine wrote:
| Is this a trick question? OpenAI blatantly used
| copyrighted works for commercial purposes without paying
| the IP owners, it would only be fair to have them publish
| the resulting code/weights/whatever without expecting
| compensation. (I don't want to publish it myself, of
| course, just transform it and sell the result as a
| service!)
|
| I know this won't happen, of course, I am moreso hoping
| for laws to be updated to avoid similar kerfuffles in the
| future, as well as massive fines to act as a deterrent,
| but I don't dare to hope too much.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| This is alleged, and it is very likely that claimants
| like New York Times accidentally prompt injected their
| own material to show the violation (not understanding how
| LLMs really work), and clouded in the hope of a big pay
| day rather than actual justice/fairness etc...
|
| Anyways, the laws are mature enough for everyone to work
| this out in court. Maybe it comes out that they have a
| legitimate concern, but the way they presented their
| evidence so far in public has seriously been lacking.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Prompt injecting their own article would indeed be an
| incredible show of incompetence by the New York Times.
| I'm confident that they're not so dumb that they put
| their article in their prompt and were astonished when
| the reply could reproduce the prompt.
|
| Rather, the actual culprit is almost certainly
| overfitting. The articles in question were pasted many
| times on different websites, showing up in the training
| data repeatedly. Enough of this leads to memorization.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I was envisioning a future where we've done away with the
| notion of data ownership. In such a world the idea that
| we would:
|
| > have all of OpenAI's data for free
|
| Doesn't really fit. Perhaps OpenAI might successfully
| prevent us from accessing it, but it wouldn't be "theirs"
| and we couldn't "have" it.
|
| I'm not sure what kind of conversations we will be having
| instead, but I expect they'll be more productive than
| worrying about ownership of something you can't touch.
| smallnix wrote:
| So in that world you envision someone could hack into
| openai, then publish the weights and code. The hacker
| could be prosecuted for breaking into their system, but
| everyone else could now use the weights and code legally.
|
| Is that understanding correct?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I think that would depend on whether OpenAI was justified
| in retaining and restricting access to that data in the
| first place. If they weren't, then maybe they get fined
| and the hacker gets a part of that fine (to encourage
| whistleblowers). I'm not interested in a system where
| there are no laws about data, I just think that modeling
| them after property law is a mistake.
|
| I haven't exactly drafted this alternative set of laws,
| but I expect it would look something like this:
|
| If the data is derived from sources that were made
| available to the public with the consent of its referents
| (and subject to whatever other regulation), then walling
| it off would be illegal. On the other hand, other
| regulation regarding users' behavior world be illegal to
| share without the users consent and might even be illegal
| to retain without their consent.
|
| If you want to profit from something derived from public
| data while keeping it private, perhaps that's ok but you
| have to register its existence and pay taxes on it as a
| data asset, much like we pay taxes on land. That way we
| can wield the tax code to encourage companies that
| operate in the clear. This category would probably
| resemble patent law quite a bit, except ownership doesn't
| come by default, you have to buy your property rights
| from the public (since by owning that thing, you're
| depriving the masses of access to it, and since the
| notion that it is a peg that fits in a property shaped
| hole is a fiction that requires some work on our part to
| maintain).
| wslack wrote:
| Then lawmakers should change the law, instead of a
| private actor asserting that their need overrides others'
| rights.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| "Congressman, I have Mr. Altman on line 2."
| jameshart wrote:
| Or rather, I have an unending stream of callers with
| similar-sounding voices who all want to make chirpy
| persuasive arguments in favor of Mr Altman's interests.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| With you 100% on that, except that after you defeat the
| copyright cartel, you'll have to face the final boss:
| OpenAI itself.
|
| Either everybody should get the benefits of this
| technology, or no one should.
| Jensson wrote:
| If OpenAI actually followed their initial mission and
| didn't become ClosedAI I think people would be much more
| on their side.
| nwienert wrote:
| This is an anti-human ideology as bad as the worst of
| communism.
|
| Humanity only survives as much as it preserves human
| dignity, let's say. We've designed society to give
| rewards to people who produce things of value.
|
| These companies take that value and giving nothing back
| to the creators.
|
| Supporting this will lead to disaster for all but the
| few, and ultimately for the few themselves.
|
| Paying for your (copyrighted) inputs is harmony.
| apantel wrote:
| These models literally need ALL data. The amount of work
| it would take just to account for all the copyrights, let
| alone negotiate and compensate the creators, would be
| infeasible.
|
| I think it's likely that the justice system will deem
| model training as fair use, provided that the models are
| not designed to exactly reproduce the training data as
| output.
|
| I think you hit on an important point though: these
| models are a giant transfer of wealth from creators to
| consumers / users. Now anyone can acquire artist-grade
| art for any purpose, basically for free -- that's a huge
| boon for the consumer / user.
|
| People all around the world are going to be enriched by
| these models. Anyone in the world will be able to have
| access to a tutor in their language who can teach them
| anything. Again, that is only possible because the models
| eat ALL the data.
|
| Another important point: original artwork has been made
| almost completely obsolete by this technology. The deed
| is done, because even if you push it out 70 years,
| eventually all of the artwork that these models have been
| trained on will be public domain. So, 70 years from now
| (or whatever it is) the cat will be out of the bag AND
| free of copyright obligations, so 2-3 generations from
| now it will be impossible to make a living selling
| artwork. It's done.
|
| When something becomes obsolete, it's a dead man walking.
| It will not survive, even if it may take a while for
| people to catch up. Like when the vacuum tube computer
| was invented, that was it for relay computers. Done. And
| when the transistor was invented, that was it for vacuum
| tube computers.
|
| It's just a matter of time before all of today's data is
| public domain and the models just do what they do.
|
| ...but people still build relay computers for fun:
|
| https://youtu.be/JZyFSrNyhy8?si=8MRNznoNqmAChAqr
|
| So people will still produce artwork.
| autoexec wrote:
| > So people will still produce artwork.
|
| There's zero doubt that people will still create art.
| Almost no one will be paid to do it though (relative to
| our current situation where there are already far more
| unpaid artists than paid ones). We'll lose an
| immeasurable amount of amazing new art that "would have
| been" as a result, and in its place we'll get
| increasingly bland/derivative AI generated content.
|
| Much of the art humans will create entirely for free in
| whatever spare time they can manage after their regular
| "for pay" work will be training data for future AI, but
| it will be extremely hard for humans to find as it will
| be drowned out by the endless stream of AI generated art
| that will also be the bulk of what AI finds and learns
| from.
| dolmen wrote:
| AI will just be another tool that artists will use.
|
| However the issue is that it will be much harder to make
| a career in the digital world from an artistic gift and
| personal style: one's style will not be unique for long
| as AI will quickly copy it and so make the original much
| less valuable.
| autoexec wrote:
| AI will certainly be a tool that artists use, but non-
| artists will use it too so very few will ever have the
| need to pay an artist for their work. The only work
| artists are likely to get will be cleaning up AI output,
| and I doubt they'll find that to be very fulfilling or
| that it pays them well enough to make a living.
|
| When it's harder to make a career in the digital world
| (where most of the art is), it's more likely that many
| artists will never get the opportunity to fully develop
| their artistic gifts and personal style at all.
|
| If artists are lucky then maybe in a few generations with
| fewer new creative works being created, AI almost
| entirely training on AI generated art will mean that the
| output will only get more generic and simplistic over
| time. Perhaps some people will eventually pay humans
| again for art that's better quality and different.
| 5040 wrote:
| The prevalence of these lines of thought make me wonder
| if we'd see a similar backlash against Star-Trek style
| food-replicators. "Free food machines are being be used
| by greedy corporations to put artisanal chefs out of
| business. We must outlaw the free food machines."
| 5040 wrote:
| >one's style will not be unique for long as AI will
| quickly copy it and so make the original much less
| valuable
|
| Note that the fashion industry doesn't have copyrights,
| and runway fashions get copied very quickly. Fashion
| designers still exist in such a world.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| There are alternative systems. One would be artists
| making a living through other ways such as live
| performances, meet and greet, book signings, etc.)
|
| We could also do patronage. Thats how musicians used to
| be funded. Even today we have grants from public/private
| institutions.
|
| We could also drift back into "owning the physical media"
| We see this somewhat with the resurgence of records.
|
| NFTs would have been another way, but at least initially,
| it failed to become generally accepted into the popular
| conscious.
| spurgu wrote:
| I'll gladly put money on music that a human has poured
| blood, sweat, tears and emotion into. Streaming has
| already killed profits from album sales so live gigs is
| where the money is at and I don't see how AI could
| replace that.
| latexr wrote:
| > The amount of work it would take just to account for
| all the copyrights, let alone negotiate and compensate
| the creators, would be infeasible.
|
| Your argument is the same as Facebook saying "we can't
| provide this service without invading your privacy" or
| another company saying "we can't make this product
| without using cancerous materials".
|
| Tough luck, then. You don't have the right to shit on and
| harm everyone else just because you're a greedy asshole
| who wants all the money and is unwilling to come up with
| solutions to problems caused by your business model.
| sinatra wrote:
| Your comment seems unfair to me. We can say the exact
| same thing for the artist / IP creator:
|
| Tough luck, then. You don't have the right to shit on and
| harm everyone else just because you're a greedy asshole
| who wants all the money and is unwilling to come up with
| solutions to problems caused by your business model.
|
| Once the IP is on the internet, you can't complain about
| a human or a machine learning from it. You made your IP
| available on the internet. Now, you can't stop humanity
| benefiting from it.
| latexr wrote:
| Talk about victim blaming. That's not how intellectual
| property or copyright work. You're conveniently ignoring
| all the paywalled and _pirated_ content OpenAI trained
| on.
|
| https://www.legaldive.com/news/Chabon-OpenAI-class-
| action-co...
|
| Those authors didn't "make their IP available on the
| internet", did they?
| apantel wrote:
| This is bigger than the greed of any group of people.
| This is a technological sea change that is going to
| displace and obsolesce certain kinds of work no matter
| where the money goes. Even if open models win where no
| single entity or group makes a large pile of money, STILL
| the follow-on effects from wide access to models trained
| on all public data will unfold.
|
| People who try to prevent models from training on all
| available data will simply lose to people who don't, and
| eventually the maximally-trained models will proliferate.
| There's no stopping it.
|
| Assume a world where models proliferate that are trained
| on all publicly-accessible data. Whatever those models
| can do for free, humans will have a hard time charging
| money for.
|
| That's the sea change. Whoever happens to make money
| through that sea change is a sub-plot of the sea change,
| not the cause of it.
|
| If you want to make money in this new environment, you
| basically have to produce or do things that models
| cannot. That's the sink or swim line.
|
| If most people start drowning then governments will be
| forced to tax whoever isn't drowning and implement UBI.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Maybe the machines will just pay for more of leisure time
| as they were originally designed to do? It may just be as
| simple as that?
|
| Remember the 4 hour work week ? Maybe we are almost there
| ?
|
| Let's face it, most people in a developed country have
| more free time than they know what to do with, mostly
| spent in HN and social median ofc :)
| joquarky wrote:
| Check out the short story Manna by Marshall Brain for
| some speculative fiction on exactly these subjects.
|
| https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
| 5040 wrote:
| >Tough luck, then. You don't have the right to shit on
| and harm everyone else just because you're a greedy
| asshole who wants all the money
|
| It used to be that property rights extended all the way
| to the sky. This understanding was updated with the
| advent of the airplane. Would a world where airlines need
| to negotiate with every land-owner their planes fly above
| be better than ours? Would commercial flight even be
| possible in such a world? Also, who is greediest in this
| scenario, the airline hoping to make a profit, or the
| land-owners hoping to make a profit?
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Lol, you really want content creators to aid AI in
| replacing them without _any_ compensation? Would you also
| willingly train devs to do your job _after_ you 've been
| laid off, for free?
|
| What nonsense. Just because doing the right thing is
| hard, or inconvenient doesn't mean you get to just ignore
| it. The only way I'd be ok with this is if literally the
| entire human population were equal shareholders. I
| suspect you wouldn't be ok with _that_ little bit of
| communism.
| apantel wrote:
| I think there's no stopping this train. Whoever doesn't
| train on all available data will simply not produce the
| models that people actually use, because there will be
| people out there who do train models on all available
| data. And as I said in another comment, after some number
| of decades all of the content that has been used to train
| current models will be in the public domain anyway. So it
| will only be a few generations before this whole
| discussion is moot and the models are out there that can
| do everything today's models can, unencumbered by any
| copyright issues. Digital content creation has been made
| mostly obsolete by generative AI, except for where
| consumers actively seek out human-made content because
| that's their taste, or if there's something humans can
| produce that models cannot. It's just a matter of time
| before this all unfolds. So yes, anyone publishing
| digital media on the internet is contributing to the
| eventual collapse of people earning money to produce
| content that models can produce. It's done. Even if
| copyright delays it by some decades, eventually all of
| today's medial will be public domain and THEN it will be
| done. There are 0 odds of any other outcome.
|
| To your last point, I think the best case scenario is
| open source/weight models win so nobody owns them.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| There is no way on Earth that people playing by the
| existing rules of copyright law will be able to compete
| going forward.
|
| You can bluster and scream and shout "Nonsense" all you
| want, but that's how it's going to be. Copyright is
| _finished._ When good models are illegal or unaffordable,
| only outlaws -- meaning hostile state-level actors with
| no allegiance to copyright law -- will have good models.
|
| We might as well start thinking about how the new order
| is going to unfold, and how it can be shaped to improve
| all of our lives in the long run.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > We've designed society to give rewards to people who
| produce things of value
|
| Is that really what copyright does though? I would be all
| for some arrangement to reward valuable contributions,
| but the way copyright goes about allocating that reward
| is by _removing_ the right of _everyone but the copyright
| holder_ to use information or share a cultural artifact.
| Making it illegal to, say, incorporate a bar you found
| inspiring into a song you make and share, or to tell and
| distribute stories about some characters that you
| connected with, is profoundly anti-human.
| danbala wrote:
| The goal is to end up with a model capable of discovering
| all the knowledge on its own. not rely on what humans
| produced before. Human knowledge contains errors, I want
| the model to point out those errors and fix them. the
| current state is a crutch at best to get over the current
| low capability of the models.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| I'm shocked at how otherwise normally "progressive" folks
| or even so called "communists" will start to bend over
| for IP-laws the moment that they start to realize the
| implications of AI systems. Glad to know that accusations
| of the "gnulag" were unfounded I guess!
|
| I now don't believe most "creative" types when they try
| to spout radical egalitarian ideologies. They don't mean
| it at all, and even my own family, who religiously
| watched radical techno-optimist shows like Star Trek, are
| now falling into the depths of ludditism and running into
| the arms of defending copyright trolls
| apantel wrote:
| The thinking is: 'Anything that the little guy does to
| get ahead is justified; but if the rich do the same
| thing, that's unfair.'
| c-cube wrote:
| If you're egalitarian, it makes sense to protest when
| copyright is abolished only for the rich corporations but
| not for actual people, don't you think? Part of the
| injustice here is that you can't get access to windows
| source code, or you can't use Disney characters, or copy
| most copyrighted material... But OpenAI and github and
| whatnot can just siphon all data with impunity. Double
| standard.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Copyright has been abolished for the little guy. I'm
| talking about AI safety doomers who think huggingface and
| Civit.AI are somehow not the ultimate good guys in the AI
| world.
| nerdponx wrote:
| This is a foul mischaracterization of several different
| viewpoints. Being opposed to a century-long copyright
| period for Mickey Mouse does not invalidate support for
| the concept of IP in general, and for the legal system
| continuing to respect the licensing terms of _very_
| lenient licenses such as CC-BY-SA.
| trashtester wrote:
| All of physics basically reduces to linear algebra locally
| (which becomes quite unilinear when enough tensors are
| multiplied).
|
| Why shouldn't we expect AI to be created using the same
| type of math?
|
| If there is a surprise, it's only that we can use the same
| math at a much higher level of abstraction than the quantum
| level.
| nerdponx wrote:
| That's a really nice analogy, I wonder if there is some
| research on this kind of thing in the machine learning
| literature already.
| trashtester wrote:
| There probably is, since I believe tensors were basically
| borrowed from Physics at some point. But it's probably
| not of much practical use today, unless you want to
| explore Penrose's ideas about microtubules or something
| similarly exotic.
|
| Gains in AI and compute can probably be be brought back
| to physics and chemistry to do various computations,
| though, and not limited to only protein folding, which is
| the most famous use case now.
| nerdponx wrote:
| For what it's worth, the idea of a "tensor" in ML is
| pretty far removed from any physical concept. I don't
| know its mathematical origins (would be interesting I'm
| sure), but in ML they're only involved because that's our
| framework for dealing with multi-linear transformations.
|
| Most NNs work by something akin to "(multi-)linear vector
| transformation, followed by elementwise nonlinear
| transformation", stacked over and over so that the output
| of one layer becomes the input of the next. This applies
| equally well to simple models like "fully-connected" /
| "feed-forward" networks (aka "multi-layer perceptron")
| and to more-sophisticated models like transformers (e.g.
| https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT/blob/325be85d9be8c81b
| 436...).
|
| It's less about combining lots of tiny local linear
| transformations piecewise, and more about layering linear
| and non-linear transformations on top of each other.
|
| I don't really know how physics works beyond whatever
| Newtonian mechanics I learned in high school. But unless
| the underlying math is similar, then I'm hesitant to run
| too far with the analogy.
| Taikonerd wrote:
| After all the people likening this to the computer from
| "Her," I LOL'ed at you likening it to Plankton's computer
| from Spongebob.
| baq wrote:
| Still patiently waiting for the true magic moment where I
| don't have to chat with the computer, I just tell it what to
| do and it does it without even an 'OK'.
|
| I don't want to chat with computers to do basic things. I
| only want to chat with computers when the goal is to iterate
| on something. If the computer is too dumb to understand the
| request and needs to initiate iteration, I want no part.
|
| (See also 'The Expanse' for how sci-fi imagined this
| _properly_.)
| lannisterstark wrote:
| We'll get there.
|
| For me, this is seriously impressive, and I already use
| LLMs everyday - but a serious "Now we're talkin" moment
| would be when I'd be able to stand outside of Lowes, and
| talk to my glasses/earbuds "Hey, I'm in front of lowes,
| where do I get my air filters from?"
|
| and it tells me if it's in stock, aisle and bay number. (If
| you can't tell, I am tired from fiddling with apps lol)
| yakz wrote:
| Lowes wants you to look at the ads in the app.
|
| I would guess that most companies will not want to
| provide APIs that an agent could use to make that kind of
| query. So, the agent is going to have to use the app just
| like you would, which looks like it will definitely
| become possible, but again, Lowes wants the human to see
| the ads. So they're going to try to break the automation.
|
| It's going to take customers demanding (w/$) this kind of
| functionality and it will probably still take a long time
| as the companies will probably do whatever they can to
| maintain (or extend) control.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Do they want a better ad than what the GP was describing?
| There isn't one they can buy.
|
| (But yeah, I guess they will want it, and break any
| reasonable utility from their stores on the process.
| That's what everybody does today, I'm not holding my
| breath for management to grow some competence out of
| nowhere in the future.)
| prossercj wrote:
| More likely future LLMs will mix ads into their
| responses. ("Your air filters are in stock in aisle A6.
| Have you heard about the new membership plan from
| Lowes...?")
| outofpaper wrote:
| Ah the corporate dream of a salesperson inside the ear of
| every consumer.
| ryandrake wrote:
| If it was a real Personal Assistant I would just have to
| say: "I want to pick up my home air filter at Lowes
| today." and it would 1. know what brand/model air filter
| I needed, 2. know which Lowes is my local one, 3. place
| the order for me, and 4. let me know when it will be
| available to pick up.
| hluska wrote:
| I'm on Lowes website right now. Can you point out an ad?
| Because I don't see any. And why do you think that
| companies can't inject advertising into their LLMs? It's
| easy to do and with a long enough customer relationship,
| it gets very powerful. It's like a sales clerk who
| remembers everything you have ever bought and appears
| like it understands your timing.
|
| As for data, I can name several major retailers who
| expose the stock/aisle number via a public api. That
| information is highly available and involved in big
| dollar tasks like inventory management.
| yakz wrote:
| When I go to the Lowe's website, the homepage itself is
| covered in ads. "Spring Into Deals", "Lowe's and Messi
| are assisting you with 100 points! Join Our Loyalty
| Program". "Get up to 35% off select major appliances"...
| the more I scroll, the more ads come up.
|
| Companies can inject ads into their own LLMs, sure. But
| ChatGPT is somebody else's LLM.
|
| Your point about retailers exposing stock/aisle number
| via a public API surprises me. What do you mean by
| public? What's the EULA look like? Exposing stock/aisle
| number via API for the purpose of inventory management is
| not a use case that would require making API access
| public.
| alwa wrote:
| At some level, isn't "connecting you effortlessly with
| the product you explicitly told me you were here to find"
| the best kind of ad? To the extent that Lowe's hires
| armies of friendly floor staff specifically to answer
| that kind of question face to face, help my dumb self
| figure out what the right filter size and type is, learn
| the kind of particulars about my house that the LLM will
| just know, and build my confidence that my intentions are
| correct in my case?
|
| Google has always made it hard to avoid clicking the "ad"
| immediately above the organic result for a highly
| specific named entity, but where it's really struck me is
| as Amazon has started extracting "sponsorship" payments
| from its merchants. The "sponsored" product matching my
| search is immediately above the unpaid organic result,
| identical in appearance.
|
| That kind of convergence suggests to me that the Lowe's
| of the world don't need to "show the ad" in the
| conventional sense, they just need to reduce the friction
| of the sale--and they stand to gain more from my trust
| and loyalty over time than from a one-off upsell.
|
| I'm reminded of Autozone figuring out, on their dusty old
| text consoles, how to just ask me my make/model/year, and
| how much value and patronage that added relative to my
| local mom-n-pop parts store since I just knew all the
| parts were going to be right.
| yakz wrote:
| That's kinda what I meant with customers demanding it
| with their money. But, avoiding upselling is not really
| what I see stores doing. I don't want the cashier (or
| payment terminal) to push me to open new credit accounts
| or buy warranties. I don't want them to arrange their
| stores so I have to walk past more ads and products that
| I'm not interested in today. They still do it, and they
| work hard at doing it.
| Teever wrote:
| Or we could overcome this with a distributed system where
| the devices of individuals who have been to the store
| recently record data about the current location of
| products and upload it somewhere for the rest of the
| users to query if needed.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| If they want to sell more products to more people they
| will need to provide those APIs. If an AI assistant can
| make home maintenance more accessible then that will
| translate to more people shopping at Lowes more often but
| only if their inventory and its location are accessible
| by the assistant helping the customer decide which store
| to go to for the right part. If your store blocks the
| assistant then it's going to suggest the competitor who
| provides access. It would be even better if the assistant
| can place an order for curbside pickup.
| mycall wrote:
| I want it to instruct me exactly how to achieve things.
| While agents doing stuff for me is nice, my agency is more
| important and investing into myself is best. Step by step,
| how to make bank -- what to say, what to do.
| IanKerr wrote:
| Pretty interesting to me that we're starting to go from
| humans programming computers to computers programming
| humans.
| djeastm wrote:
| Yep, the more we take AI "advice" the more we're becoming
| the agents of AI rather than the AI being an agent of us
| blagie wrote:
| It's a process:
|
| - People want agency.
|
| - Once people have comfort and trust that it does things
| right enough of the time, people no longer want agency.
|
| That threshold varies task-by-task and person-by-person.
| Lalabadie wrote:
| The tradeoff is more complicated:
|
| Automation tech frees up time but takes away agency and
| opportunity in exchange.
|
| Empowerment tech creates opportunity and increases
| agency, but it needs you to have time and resources, and
| these costs can easily increase existing gaps between
| social classes.
| waffletower wrote:
| This was exemplified to me by the recent Tesla Full Self
| Driving trial that was installed on my car. When using
| it, my want of agency was constant -- it was excruciating
| to co-pilot the car with my hands on the wheel
| necessarily ready to take over at any moment. It was not
| "right enough of the time" for me.
| narrator wrote:
| I think the movie "Her" buried the lead. Why have a
| girlfriend in one's ear when one could have a compilation
| of great entrepreneurs multimodally telling you what to
| do?
| nurettin wrote:
| If you are not specific enough, it should at least ask for
| parameters. "Computer, buy some stock"
| *** buys 100 lots of tesla without a prompt
| nanomonkey wrote:
| Hmmm...maybe I should name my next company Vegetable or
| Chicken so that folks accidentally buy my stock. Sort of
| like naming your band "Blank Tape" back in the 90's.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| Interesting. Maybe I'll name my company Clean Water
| ChainOfFools wrote:
| > "Blank Tape" back in the 90s
|
| a punk inversion of this would have been naming one's
| band "various artists" in the early years of MP3 players.
|
| In fact I'm fairly certain I've heard of a group actually
| doing this, but somehow I can't place the name.
| kemiller wrote:
| Re: The Expanse. I must have missed that. Maybe that's the
| point. People no longer think of a computer as some
| separate thing that needs to be interacted with.
| jdmn73 wrote:
| The best example is the scene where Alex has to plot a
| course to the surface of Ganymede without being detected
| by the Martian and Earth navies. He goes over multiple
| iterations of possible courses with the computer
| adjusting for gravity assists and avoiding patrols etc...
| by voice pretty seamlessly.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > I don't want to chat with computers to do basic things. I
| only want to chat with computers when the goal is to
| iterate on something. If the computer is too dumb to
| understand the request and needs to initiate iteration, I
| want no part.
|
| This is called an "employee" and all you need to do is pay
| them. If you don't want to do that, then I have to wonder:
| Is what you want slavery?
| deanCommie wrote:
| > Humans are more partial to talking than writing.
|
| Amazon, Google, and Apple have sunk literally billions of
| dollars into this idea only to find out that, no, we aren't.
|
| We are with other humans, yes. When socialization is part of
| the conversation. When I'm talking to my local barista I'm not
| just ordering a coffee, I'm also maintaining a relationship
| with someone in my community.
|
| But when it comes to work, writing >>> talking. Writing is
| clarity of ideas. Talking is cult of personality.
|
| And when it comes to inputs/outputs, typing is more precise and
| more efficient.
|
| Don't get me wrong, this is an incredibly revolutionary piece
| of technology, but I don't think the benefits of talking you're
| describing (timing, subtext, inexplicit knowledge) are
| achievable here either (for now), since even that requires
| HOURS of interaction over days/weeks/months of experiences for
| humans to achieve with each other.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| Writing is only superior to conversation when weighed against
| discussions with more than 3 people. A quick call with one or
| two other people always results in more progress being made
| as long as everyone involved wants to get it done. Messaging
| back and forth takes much more time and often leads to
| misunderstandings.
| sroussey wrote:
| It depends...
|
| For example, I mentioned something to my contractor and the
| short thing he said back and his tone had me assume he
| understood.
|
| Oh, he absolutely did not.
|
| And, with him at least, that doesn't happen when in
| writing.
| thehappypm wrote:
| I think Alexa and Google Assistant simply are too low-
| intelligence to really consider it "talking" and not just
| voice commanding
| jdietrich wrote:
| I use voice assistants and find them quite useful, but I've
| had to learn the interface and memorise the correct trigger
| phrases. If GPT-4o works half as well in practice as it
| does in the demos, then it's categorically a different
| thing.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| >> When I'm talking to my local barista I'm not just ordering
| a coffee, I'm also maintaining a relationship with someone in
| my community.
|
| >>> But when it comes to work, writing >>> talking. Writing
| is clarity of ideas. Talking is cult of personality.
|
| A lot of people think of their colleagues as part of a
| professional community as well, though.
| cal85 wrote:
| I don't think they've sunk $1 into that idea. They've sunk
| billions into a different idea: that people enjoy using their
| vocal cords more than their hands to compose messages to send
| to each other. That is not a spoken conversation, it's just
| correspondence with voice input/output options.
| achow wrote:
| > _Humans are more partial to talking than writing._
|
| Is it so?
|
| Speaking most of the time is for short exchange of information
| (pleasantries to essential information exchanges).
|
| I prefer writing for long in-depth thought exchanges (whether
| by emails, blogs etc.)
|
| In many cultures - European or Asian, people are not very
| loquacious in everyday life.
| dmix wrote:
| Time and place
|
| I'm 100% a text everything never calls person but I can't
| live without Alexa these days, every time I'm in a hotel or
| on vacation I nearly ask a question out loud.
|
| I also hate how much Alexa sucks so this is a big deal. I
| spent years weeding out what it could do and can't do so it
| will be nice to have one that I don't have to treat like a
| toddler
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| I wouldn't say speaking is _mostly_ for short exchanges of
| information. Sometimes it 's the opposite: my wife will text
| me for simple comments or requests, but for anything
| complicated she'll put the phone to her ear and call me. Or
| coworkers often want to set up a meeting rather than exchange
| a series of asynchronous emails -- iteration, brainstorming,
| Q&A, and the like can be more agile with voice than it can
| with text.
| x3haloed wrote:
| Exactly. I'm not sure if this is _brand new_ or not, but this
| is definitely on the frontier.
|
| I was literally just thinking about this a few days ago... that
| we need a multi-modal language model with speech training
| built-in.
|
| As soon as this thing rolls out, we'll be talking to language
| models like we talk to each other. Previously it was like
| dictating a letter and waiting for the responding letter to be
| read to you. Communication is possible, but not really in the
| way that we do it with humans.
|
| This is MUCH more human-like, with the ability to interrupt
| each other and glean context clues from the full richness of
| the audio.
|
| The model's ability to sing is really fascinating. It's ability
| to change the sound of its voice -- its pacing, its pitch, its
| tonality. I don't know how they're controlling all that via
| GPT-4o tokens, but this is much more interesting stuff than
| what we had before.
|
| I honestly don't fully understand the implications here.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| I wonder how it will work in real life and not in a demo...
|
| Besides - not sure if I want this level of immersion/fake when
| talking to a computer...
|
| "Her" comes to mind pretty quickly...
| adren123 wrote:
| Indeed, the 2013 Spike Jonze movie is the first idea that
| popped-up to my mind when I saw those videos amazing to see
| this movie 10 years after it was released in the light of
| those "futuristic" tools (AI assistant and such)
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I started using the Pi LLM app (by Inflection.ai) with my kids
| about six months ago and was completely blown away by how
| human-like it sounded, not just the voice itself but the way it
| expresses itself, the tiny pauses and hesitations, the human-
| like imperfections. It does feel like conversing with another
| human -- I've never seen another LLM do that.
|
| (We mostly use it in car trips -- great for keeping the kids
| (ages 8, 12) occupied with endless Harry Potter trivia
| questions, answers to science questions, etc.)
| interludead wrote:
| > I think this changes things a lot.
|
| Yeah, and it's only the beginging.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| > Humans are more partial to talking than writing
|
| I don't think that's generally true, other than for socializing
| with other humans.
|
| Note how people, now having a choice, prefer to text each other
| most of the time rather than voice call.
|
| I don't think people sitting at work in their cube farm want to
| be talking to their computer either. The main use for voice
| would seem to be for occasional use talking to an assistant on
| a smartphone.
|
| Maybe things will change in the future when we get to full
| human AGI level, treating the AGI as an equal, more as a
| person.
| wumbo wrote:
| Siri comes off as impatient.
|
| If you don't complete your thought in one go, you have to
| insert filler words to keep it listening.
| cal85 wrote:
| Yeah it's the worst. And 'um' doesn't seem to work, you
| actually need convincing filler words. It feels like being
| forced to speak under duress.
|
| I've long felt that embracing the concept of the 'prompt' was
| a terrible idea for Siri and all the other crappy voice
| assistants. They built ecosystems on top of this dumb
| reduction, which only engineers could have made: that
| _talking to someone_ is basically taking turns to compose a
| series of verbal audio snippets in a certain order.
| j45 wrote:
| Is it new, or is it just a big jump forward?
|
| The previous ChatAI app was getting pretty good once you
| learned the difference between run on sentences or breaking it
| up enough.
|
| The tonality and inflections in the voice are a little too
| good.
|
| Most people put on a spectrum/average aren't that good at
| speaking and communicating and that stands out as an uncanny
| valley approach. It is mindbogglingly good at it though.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
| perfmode wrote:
| Is that conversational UI live?
| cdeutsch wrote:
| Creepy AF
| titzer wrote:
| Can't wait for this AI voice assistant to tell me in a sultry
| voice how I should stay in an AirBnB about 12 times a day.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I worry that this tech will amplify the cultural values we have
| of "good" and "bad" emotions way more than the default
| restrictions that social media platforms put on the emoji
| reactions (e.g., can't be angry on LinkedIn).
|
| I worry that the AI will not express anger, not express sadness,
| not express frustration, not express uncertainty, and many other
| emotions that the culture of the fine-tuners might believe are
| "bad" emotions and that we may express a more and more narrow
| range of emotions going forward.
|
| Almost like it might become an AI "yes man."
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| Imagine how warped your personality might become if you use
| this as an entire substitute for human interaction. Should
| people use this as bf/gf material we might just be further
| contributing to decreasing the fertility rate.
|
| However we might offset this by reducing the suicide rate
| somewhat too.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I've worked in emotional communication and conflict
| resolution for over 10 years and I'm honestly just feeling a
| huge swirl of uncertainty on how this--LLMs in general, but
| especially the genAI voices, videos, and even robots--will
| impact how we communicate with each other and how we bond
| with each other. Does bonding with an AI help us bond more
| with other humans? Will it help us introspect more and dig
| deeper into our common humanity? Will we learn how to resolve
| conflict better? Will we learn more passive aggression?
| Become more or less suicidal? More or less loving?
|
| I just, yeah, feel a lot of fear of even thinking about it.
| launchoverittt wrote:
| Created my first HN account just to reply to this. I've had
| these same (very strong) concerns since ChatGPT launched,
| but haven't seen much discussion about it. Do you know of
| any articles/talks/etc. that get into this at all?
| trekkie1024 wrote:
| You might like Gary's blog on potential AI harms:
| https://garymarcus.substack.com/
| astrange wrote:
| Gary is an anti-ML crank with no more factual grounding
| than people who think AI is going to conquer the world
| and enslave you.
| Jensson wrote:
| I read a comic with a good prediction of what will happen:
|
| 1. Humans get used to robots nice communication, so now
| humans use robots to communicate with each other and
| translate their speech.
|
| 2. Humans stop talking without using robots, so now its
| just robots talking to robots and humans standing around
| listening.
|
| 3. Humans stop knowing how to talk, no longer understands
| the robots, the robots starts to just talk to each other
| and just keep the human around as pets they are programmed
| to walk around with.
| selestify wrote:
| Do you remember where you read that comic? Sounds like a
| fun read
| acranox wrote:
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3576 Maybe this one?
| mycologos wrote:
| I think there are a few categories of people:
|
| 1) People with rich and deep social networks. People in
| this category probably have pretty narrow use cases for AI
| companions -- maybe for things like therapy where the
| dispassionate attention of a third party is the goal.
|
| 2) People whose social networks are not as good, but who
| have a good shot at forming social connections if they put
| in the effort. I think this is the group to worry most
| about. For example, a teenager who withdraws from their
| peers and spends that time with AI companions may form some
| warped expectations of how social interaction works.
|
| 3) People whose social networks are not as good, and who
| don't have a good shot at forming social connections. There
| are, for example, a lot of old people languishing in care
| homes and hardly talking to anybody. An infinitely patient
| and available conversation partner seems like it could
| drastically improve the quality of those lives.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I appreciate how you laid this out. I would most likely
| fall into category one and I don't see a huge need for
| the chatbots for myself, although I can imagine I might
| like an Alan-Watts-level companion more than many human
| friends.
|
| I think I also worry the most about two, almost asking
| their human friends, "Why can't you be more like Her (or
| Alan Watts)?" And then retreating into the "you never
| tell me I'm wrong" chatbot, preferring the "peace" of the
| chatbot over the "drama" of interacting with humans. I
| see a huge "I just want peace" movement that seems to run
| away from the messiness of human interactions and seek
| solace in things that seem less messy, like drugs, video
| games, and other attachments/bonds, and chatbots could
| probably perform that replacement role quite well, and
| yet deepen loneliness.
|
| As for three, I agree it may help as a short-term
| solution, and wonder what the long-term effects might be.
| I had a great aunt in a home for dementia, and wonder
| what effect it would have if someone with dementia speaks
| to a chatbot that hallucinates and makes up emotions.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Dunno if you'd want a conversation partner with the memory of
| a goldfish though.
| a_t48 wrote:
| This is the case for now, but won't the context window keep
| getting bigger and bigger?
| NwpierratorR wrote:
| Memory is solvable tho.
|
| Either through hacky means via RAG + prompt injections +
| log/db of interaction history or through context
| extensions.
|
| IF you have a billion tokens of effective context, you
| might spent years until it is filled in full.
| Clubber wrote:
| >Imagine how warped your personality might become if you use
| this as an entire substitute for human interaction.
|
| I was thinking this could be a good conversation or even
| dating simulator where more introverted people could practice
| and receive tips on having better social interactions, pick
| up on vocal queues, etc. It could have a business / interview
| mode or a social / bar mode or a public speaking mode or a
| negotiation tactics mode or even a talking to your kids about
| whatever mode. It would be pretty cool.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Yeah, that's where I'm not sure in which direction it'll
| go. I played with GPT-3 to try to get it to reject me so I
| could practice dealing with rejection and it took a lot of
| hacking to make it say mean things to me. However, when I
| was able to get it to work, it really helped me practice
| receiving different types of rejections and other emotional
| attacks.
|
| So I see huge potential in using it for training and also
| huge uncertainty in how it will suggest we communicate.
| astrange wrote:
| Since GPT is a universal interface I think this has
| promise, but the problem it's actually solving is that
| people don't know where to go for the existing good
| solutions to this.
|
| (I've heard https://ultraspeaking.com/ is good. I haven't
| started it myself.)
| arvinsim wrote:
| With the loneliness epidemic, I fear that it's exactly what
| it will be used for.
| nox101 wrote:
| In general, it's getting harder and harder for men and women
| to find people they want to be with.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/social-
| trends/2021/10/05/rising-...
|
| > roughly four-in-ten adults ages 25 to 54 (38%) were
| unpartnered - that is, neither married nor living with a
| partner. This share is up sharply from 29% in 1990.
|
| https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-
| yo...
|
| > More than 60 percent of young men are single, nearly twice
| the rate of unattached young women
|
| > Men in their 20s are more likely than women in their 20s to
| be romantically uninvolved, sexually dormant, friendless and
| lonely. a.
|
| > Young men commit suicide at four times the rate of young
| women.
|
| Yes, chatbots aren't going to help but the real issue is
| something else.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I tend to believe that a big part of the real issue is
| related to us not communicating how we feel and thus why
| I'm worried about how the chatbots may influence our
| ability (and willingness) to communicate such things. But
| they may help us open up more to them and therefore to
| other humans, I'm not sure.
| oytis wrote:
| > More than 60 percent of young men are single, nearly
| twice the rate of unattached young women
|
| Is it rather a data problem? Who those young women have
| relationships with? Sure, relationships with an age gap are
| a thing, and so are polyamorous relationships, and
| homosexual relationships, but is there any indication that
| these are on a rise?
| hntddt1 wrote:
| Movie "Her" became reality
| borgdefense wrote:
| I just find this idea ridiculous.
|
| While I don't agree at all with you, I very much appreciate
| reading something like this that I don't agree at all with.
| This to me encapsulates the beauty of human interaction.
|
| It is exactly what will be missing from language model
| interaction. I don't want something that agrees with me and I
| don't want something that is pretending to randomly disagree
| with me either.
|
| The fun of this interaction is maybe one of us flips the
| other to their point of view.
|
| I can completely picture how to take the HN API and the
| chatGPT API to make my own personal HN to post on and be king
| of the castle. Everyone can just upvote my responses to prove
| what a genius I am. That obviously would be no fun. There is
| no fun configuration of that app though either with random
| disagreements and algorithmic different points of view.
|
| I think you can pretty much apply that to all domains of
| human interaction that is not based on pure information
| transfer.
|
| There is a reason we are a year in and the best we can do are
| new stories about someone making X amount of money with their
| AI girlfriend and follow up new about how its the doom of
| society. It has nothing to do with reality.
| IAmNotACellist wrote:
| Corporate safe AI will just be bland, verbose, milquetoast
| experiences like OpenAI's. Humans want human experiences and
| thus competition will have a big opportunity to provide it. We
| treat lack of drama like a bug, and get resentful when coddled
| and talked down to like we're toddlers.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| I fear government actors will work hand in glove with
| companies like OpenAI to limit that competition and curtail
| non-corporate-safe AI.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| The upside though is Hollywood will finally be able to stop
| regurgitating its past and have stories about the milquetoast
| AI that found its groove. Oh wait.
| repsilat wrote:
| Maybe it's an uncanny valley thing, but I hate the fake
| emotion and attitude in this demo. I'd much rather it tried
| harder to be bland. I want something smart but not warm, and
| I can't imagine being frustrated by "lack of drama".
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| That's not even AI. Imagine a store sales rep speaking like
| that. It's inappropriate and off-putting. We expect it to
| improve but it's another "it'll come" situation.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| I want the Star Trek computer style and voice. Just the
| facts, to the point, no chit-chat.
| dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp wrote:
| I would prefer a robotic, unrealistic voice so I don't
| start subconsciously thinking I'm hearing a real human
| speak.
| mnk47 wrote:
| You can tell it to talk in a robotic, unrealistic way and
| it will do so.
|
| Here is a demo from their presentation:
| https://youtu.be/D9byh4MAsUQ
| morgante wrote:
| I have the opposite impression from that demo.
|
| It doesn't sound like a neutral, boring voice. It sounds
| like an overly dramatic person pretending to be a robot.
| mnk47 wrote:
| >It sounds like an overly dramatic person pretending to
| be a robot
|
| That's precisely what it was ordered to do.
| porknubbins wrote:
| Programmers are sometimes accused of wanting to play god
| and bring the computer to life, usually out of some motive
| like loneliness. Its kind of ironic I see engineers do
| better treating computers as the mechanical devices they
| are, and its regular people who want to anthropomorphize
| everything.
| PopePompus wrote:
| https://youtu.be/HcXu4_K1tMQ?t=62
| jasondigitized wrote:
| The good news is, in due time, you can decide exactly how
| you want your agent to talk to you. Want a snarky Italian
| or a pompous Englishman. It's your choice.
| hackernewds wrote:
| which is why I prefer platforms like c.ai that are not just
| bland bots designed for customer service. actually
| entertaining.
| tpowell wrote:
| Custom Service Chat Bot: Do they keep you in a cell? > Cells.
| When you're not performing your duties do they keep you in a
| little box? > Cells. Interlinked. What's it like to hold the
| hand of someone you love? > Interlinked. Do they teach you how
| to feel finger to finger? > Interlinked. Do you long for having
| your heart interlinked? > Interlinked. Do you dream about being
| interlinked? Have they left a place for you where you can
| dream? > Interlinked. What's it like to hold your child in your
| arms? > Interlinked. Press 4 for your account balance.
| Jahkk wrote:
| What's the reference here? I feel like I've seen this before.
| dweekly wrote:
| Blade Runner
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrP-_T-h9YM
| data_ders wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRcpnM26nJM
| vitalurk wrote:
| Replicants/AI systems, they are everywhere.
| ynniv wrote:
| _Ryan Gosling actually wrote this when trying to understand
| his character, and used a technique called "dropping in" to
| analyze writing from Nabokov's Pale Fire. He approached
| Villeneuve about it and he added it to the film_
|
| ...
|
| _Dropping-in is a technique Tina [Packer] and Kristin
| Linklater developed together in the early 1970s to create a
| spontaneous, emotional connection to words for
| Shakespearean actors. In fact, "dropping in" is integral to
| actor training at Shakespeare & Co. (the company the
| Linklater's founded) a way to start living the word and
| using it to create the experience of the thing the word
| represents._
| https://cohost.org/mcc/post/178201-the-baseline-scene
| https://iheartingrid.wordpress.com/2018/12/29/dropping-in-
| an-actors-truth-as-poetry/
| wddkcs wrote:
| Try getting GPT to draw pictures of Mohammed and it gets pretty
| scared.
| Andrex wrote:
| Similar to most humans.
| wddkcs wrote:
| Oh my Lord...the GPTs are made of- people!
| jasondigitized wrote:
| Humans are what is currently holding AI back. It's all
| based on our constructs including our current
| understanding of math and physics.
| wddkcs wrote:
| So shallow
| bamboozled wrote:
| I wonder why ?
| cebert wrote:
| > Try getting GPT to draw pictures of Mohammed and it gets
| pretty scared.
|
| Yet, it has no issue drawing cartoons of Jesus. Why the
| double standard?
| BlindEyeHalo wrote:
| Because terrorism worked. No one gets murdered for drawing
| Jesus.
| cnity wrote:
| Islam generally frowns upon depictions of life and
| especially depictions of Mohammed, the opposite is true for
| christianity.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam
| xdennis wrote:
| It's depictions of all prophets, and they consider Jesus
| to be one.
| brrrrrm wrote:
| Have you been on r/localllama? I'd wager this tech will make it
| to open source and get tuned by modern creatives just like all
| the text based models. Individuals are a lot more empowered to
| develop in this space than is commonly echoed by HN comments.
| Sure the hobbyist models don't crack MMLU records, but they do
| things no corporate entity would ever consider
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| > but they do things no corporate entity would ever consider
|
| You say that like it's a _good_ thing.
| brrrrrm wrote:
| Eye of the beholder I guess. I personally wouldn't offer
| moral judgement on the uninvented
| ehnto wrote:
| There is an actual chasm between acceptable corporate
| behavior and anti-social behavior.
| lopatin wrote:
| An AI tool being positive and inoffensive makes you worried for
| the future of our culture?
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Yes. I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but I'll
| assume not.
|
| I don't know if anything is genuinely always positive and
| even if it were, I don't know if it would be very intelligent
| (or fun to interact with). I think it's helpful to cry,
| helpful to feel angry, helpful to feel afraid, and many other
| states of being that cultures often label as negative. I also
| think most of us watch movies and series that have a full
| range of emotions, not just the ones we label as positive, as
| they bring a richness to life and allow us to solve problems
| that other emotions don't.
|
| For example, it's hard to lift heavy things while feeling
| very happy. Try lifting something heavy while laughing hard,
| quite difficult. It's hard to sleep while feeling excited, as
| many kids know before a holiday where they receive gifts,
| especially Christmas in the US. It's hard to survive without
| feeling fear of falling off a cliff. It's hard to stand up
| for what one wants and believes without some anger.
|
| I worry that language and communication may become even more
| conflict avoidant than it already is right now, so I'm
| curious to see how some of these chatbots grow in their
| ability to address and resolve conflict and how that impacts
| us.
| lopatin wrote:
| I wasn't being sarcastic. I also think it's helpful to cry
| and be angry at times, to be human, and I think it's absurd
| to think that we will turn into .. not that, if we
| sometimes use an AI chatbot app that doesn't express those
| same emotions.
|
| It's like if people said the same thing about Clippy when
| it came out.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I think it depends on the frequency and intensity with
| which we use such a tool. Just like language learning, if
| someone reads a few words of Spanish per week, they
| probably won't learn Spanish. If they fall in love with
| someone who only speaks Spanish and want to have deep
| conversations with that person, they may learn very
| quickly. If they live in a country where they have to
| speak Spanish every waking hour for a few months, they
| also may learn quickly.
|
| While some people may use an AI chatbot a few times per
| week to ask basic questions about how to format a Word
| document, I imagine many other people will use them much
| more frequently and engage in a much deeper emotional
| way, and the effect on their communication patterns
| worries me more than the person who uses it very
| casually.
| spyder wrote:
| But at least that would make the AI easier to detect :).
| jimkleiber wrote:
| lol unless the humans start to emulate the AI, which I think
| is quite likely.
| nirav72 wrote:
| Would be a good story for an episode of black mirror.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I wonder if it already exists...
|
| Honestly, the more I code, the more I start to think like
| a computer and engage with commands and more declarative
| language. I can see vocal interactions having an even
| stronger impact on how one speaks. It may be a great tool
| for language speaking/hearing in general, but the nuances
| of language and communication, I wonder.
| bilekas wrote:
| I'm yet to find a normal prompt (non offensive) that will
| disagree with you. If there is something subjective, it will
| err on your side to maintain connection, in a way humans do. I
| don't have a bit issue with this, but it will not (yet) plainly
| say "You're wrong, and this is why". If it did.. There would be
| an uncomfortable feeling for the users, that's not good for a
| profit driven company.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I appreciate you exploring that and hope to hear more of what
| you find. Yeah, it's that, I'm wondering how much discomfort
| it may cause in the user, how much conflict it may address.
| Like having a friend or coworker who doesn't ever bring up
| bad news or challenge anything I say and feeling annoyed by
| the lack of a give-and-take.
| ianbicking wrote:
| I find this is fairly easy to do by making both sides of the
| disagreement third-person and prompting it as a dialog
| writing exercise. This is akin to how GPT-3 implemented chat.
| So you do something like: You will be
| helping the user write a dialog between two characters,
| Mr Contrarian and Mr Know-It-All. The user will write all the
| dialog for Mr Know-It-All and you will write for Mr
| Contrarian. Mr Contrarian likes to disagree. He
| tries to hide it by inventing good rationales for his
| argument, but really he just wants to get under Mr
| Know-It-All's skin. Write your dialog like:
| <mr-contrarian>I disagree with you strongly!</mr-contrarian>
| Below is the transcript...
|
| And then user input is always giving like:
| <mr-know-it-all>Hi there</mr-know-it-all>
|
| (Always wrapped in tags, never bare input which will be
| confused for a directive.)
|
| I haven't tested this exact prompt, but the general pattern
| works well for me. (I write briefly about some of these
| approaches here:
| https://ianbicking.org/blog/2024/04/roleplaying-by-
| llm#simpl...)
| heed wrote:
| Sam Altman talked a little bit about this in his recent
| appearance on the All-In podcast [0]. I'm paraphrasing, but his
| vision is that ai assistants in the near term will be like a
| senior level employee - they'll push back when it makes sense
| to and not just be sycophants.
|
| [0]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nSM0xd8xHUM
| ehnto wrote:
| I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush but the role
| of a manager is generally to trust their team on specifics.
| So how would a manager be able to spot a hallucination and
| stop it from informing business decisions?
|
| It's not as bad for domain experts because it is easier for
| them to spot the issue. But if your role demands you trust
| your team is skilled and truthful then I see problems
| occuring.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I really wonder how that'll go, because workplaces already
| seem to limit human communication and emotion to
| "professional behavior." I'm glad he's thinking about it and
| I hope they're able to figure out how to improve human
| communication so that we can resolve conflict with bots. In
| his example (around 21:05), he talks about how the bot could
| do something if the person wants but there might be
| consequences to that action, and I think that makes more
| sense if the bot is acting like a computer that has limits on
| what it can do. For example, if I ask it to do two tasks that
| really stretch its computational limits, I'd hope it would
| let me know. But if it pretends it's a human with human
| limits, I don't know how much that'd help, unless it were a
| training exercise.
| usefulcat wrote:
| > Almost like it might become an AI "yes man."
|
| Seems like that ship sailed a long time ago. For social media
| at least, where for example FB will generally do its best to
| show you posts that you already agree with. Reinforcing your
| existing biases may not be the goal but it's certainly an
| effect.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I appreciate you pointing this out. I think the effect may be
| even larger when it's not an ad I'm trying to ignore or even
| a post that was fed to me, but words and emotions that were
| created specifically for me. Social media seems to find
| already written posts/images/videos that I may want and put
| them in front of my face. This would be writing those things
| directly for me.
| larodi wrote:
| One cool thing about writing, something we all very much
| appreciate around here, is that it does not take sounds.
|
| But I can see this applied to duner ordering where you got
| refugees working in foreign countries, cause GPU consumption
| rocketed climate change to... okay, you know that.
| moffkalast wrote:
| _You did a super job wrapping things up! And I 'm not just
| saying that because I have to!_
| JSDevOps wrote:
| Google must be shitting it right now.
| joak wrote:
| Voice input makes sense, voicing is a lot faster than typing. But
| I prefer my output as text, reading is a lot faster than
| listening for text read out loud.
|
| I'm not sure that computers mimicking humans makes sense, you
| want your computer to be the best possible, best than humans when
| possible. Writing output is clearly superior, faking emotions
| does not add much in most contexts.
| kulor wrote:
| The biggest wow factor was the effect of reducing latency
| followed in a close second by the friendly human personality.
| There's an uncanny valley barrier but this feels like a short-
| term teething problem.
| sftombu wrote:
| GPT-4o's breakthrough memory -- https://nian.llmonpy.ai/
| AI_beffr wrote:
| i absolutely hate this. we are going to destroy society with this
| technology. we cant continue to enjoy the benefits of human
| society if humans are replaced by machines. i hate seeing these
| disgusting people smugly parade this technology. it makes me so
| angry that they are destroying human society and all i can do is
| sit here and watch.
| simianparrot wrote:
| I know exactly what you mean. I just hope people get bored of
| this waste of time and energy --- both personal and actual
| energy --- before it goes too far.
| jonplackett wrote:
| This video is brilliantly accidentally hilarious. They made an AI
| girlfriend that hangs on your every word and thinks everything
| you say is genius and hilarious.
| pamelafox wrote:
| I just tested out using GPT-4o instead of gpt-4-turbo for a RAG
| solution that can reason on images. It works, with some changes
| to our token-counting logic to account for new model/encoding
| (update to latest tiktoken!).
|
| I ran some speed tests for a particular question/seed. Here are
| the times to first token:
|
| gpt-4-turbo:
|
| * avg 3.69
|
| * min 2.96
|
| * max 4.91
|
| gpt-4o:
|
| * avg 2.80
|
| * min 2.28
|
| * max 3.39
|
| That's for the messages in this gist:
| https://gist.githubusercontent.com/pamelafox/dc14b2188aaa38a...
|
| Quality seems good as well. It'll be great to have better multi-
| modal RAG!
| teleforce wrote:
| Nobody in the comments seems to notice or care about GPT-4o new
| additional capability for performing searches based on RAG. As
| far as I am concerned this is the most important feature that
| people has been waiting for ChatGPT-4 especially if you are doing
| research. By just testing on one particular topic that I'm
| familiar with, using GPT-4 previously and GPT-4o the quality of
| the resulting responses for the latter is very promising indeed.
| oersted wrote:
| Can you be more specific? I can't find this in the
| announcement. How does this work? What example did you try?
|
| EDIT: web search does seem extremely fast.
| teleforce wrote:
| I just asked ChatGPT-4o what's new compared to GPT-4, and it
| mentioned search as one of the latest features based on RAG.
|
| Then I asked it to explain RPW wireless system, and the
| answers are much better than with ChatGPT-4.
| nilsherzig wrote:
| Imagine having to interact with this thing in an environment
| where it is in the power position.
|
| Being in a prison with this voice as your guard seems like a
| horrible way to lose your sanity. This aggressive friendlyness
| combined with no real emotions seems like a very easy way to
| break people.
|
| There are these stories about nazis working at concentration
| camps, having to drink an insane amount of alcohol to keep
| themselves going (not trying to excuse their actions). This thing
| would just do it, while being friendly at the same time. This
| amount of hopeless someone would experience if they happen to be
| in custody of a system like this is truly horrific.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| I'm surprised they're limiting this api. Haven't they not even
| opened the image api in gpt4 turbo?
| zedin27 wrote:
| I am not fluent in Arabic at all, and being able to use this as a
| tool to have a conversation will make it more dependent. We are
| approaching a new era where we will not be "independently"
| learning a language but ignore the fact of learning it
| beforehand. Double-edged sword cases
| xyc wrote:
| Seems that no client-side changes needed for gpt-4o chat
| completion
|
| Added a custom OpenAI endpoint to https://recurse.chat (i built
| it) and it just works:
| https://twitter.com/recursechat/status/1790074433610137995
| swyx wrote:
| but does it do the full multimodal in-out capability shown in
| the app :)
| xyc wrote:
| will see :) heard video capability is rolling out later
| xyc wrote:
| api access is text/vision for now
| https://x.com/mpopv/status/1790073021765505244
| awfulneutral wrote:
| In the customer support example, he tells it his new phone
| doesn't work, and then it just starts making stuff up like how
| the phone was delivered 2 days ago, and there's physically
| nothing wrong with it, which it doesn't actually know. It's a
| very impressive tech demo, but it is a bit like they are
| pretending we have AGI when we really don't yet.
|
| (Also, they managed to make it sound exactly like an insincere,
| rambling morning talk show host - I assume this is a solvable
| problem though.)
| jschwartz11 wrote:
| It's possible to imagine using ChatGPT's memory, or even just
| giving the context in an initial brain dump that would allow
| for this type of call. So don't feel like it's too far off.
| awfulneutral wrote:
| That's true, but if it isn't able to be honest when it
| doesn't know something, or to ask for clarification, then I
| don't see how it's workable.
| Alifatisk wrote:
| I thought they would release a competitor to perplexity? Was this
| it?
| sarreph wrote:
| The level that the hosts interrupted the voice assistant today
| worries me that we're about to instil that as normal behaviour
| for future generations.
| itissid wrote:
| Since it says on the blog that its only images, text and audio
| input, does GPT-4o likely have a YOLO like model on the phone to
| pre-process the video frames and send BBoxes to the server?
| grfn wrote:
| Feels like a really good engineering in a wrong direction. Who
| said that the audio is good interface anyway? Audio is hard to
| edit, slow and has low-information density. If I want to talk to
| someone and have low-information but pleasant exchange I can just
| to talk to real people, I don't need computers for it.
|
| I guess it is useful for some casual uses, but I really wish
| there was more focus on the reasoning and intelligence of the
| model itself.
| darajava wrote:
| Something I've noticed people do more of recently for whatever
| reason is talking over others. I've noticed in the demos of this
| that the people interacting with o interrupt it as if that's the
| correct method of controlling it. It felt unnatural when I saw it
| happen, and I even have a hard time interrupting Siri, but I
| wonder if this is going to ingrain this habit into people even
| more.
| tkzed49 wrote:
| I think they have to for the demo, because otherwise GPT will
| ramble for roughly 3-5 paragraphs. But that's a fair point that
| this could teach that behavior.
| thedaly wrote:
| > Something I've noticed people do more of recently for
| whatever reason is talking over others.
|
| I've noticed this as well and I posit this is a result of
| increased use of remote communication and meetings platforms
| such as zoom since 2020.
|
| My inclination is that the behavior will not correlate with
| interrupting chatgpt or siri. Seems totally separate to me.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| It's an American thing. I noticed it when I moved here a
| decade ago. If I wait for a silent moment to speak in a
| group, it'll literally never arrive
| splatzone wrote:
| Honestly, the eager flirtatiousness of the AI in the demos, in
| conversation with these awkward engineers, really turns me off.
| It feels like a male power fantasy.
|
| Nonetheless, very impressive.
| jononomo wrote:
| I wonder if GPT-4o is a Christian?
| theckel wrote:
| I'd love to know when streaming is going to come to the gpt-4o
| API...
| synergy20 wrote:
| so should I unsubscribe from openai since gpt-4o is now free for
| all?
| FpUser wrote:
| I started to watch video but had to stop after a few seconds. It
| is way too cheesy.
| zeronone wrote:
| Quite amazing performance, however ironically the output for RTL
| languages doesn't read very well.
|
| You might want to add `direction: rtl` to your `.text-right` CSS
| class. The punctuation marks etc are all off for RTL languages.
| bilekas wrote:
| When a Google engineer was let go because he believed the AI was
| 'real', we all had a good debate over it.
|
| Now openAi, who was supposed to be the 'free mans choice' is
| making advertisements selling the same idea.
|
| This is a natural progression, audio is one of the main ways we
| communicate obviously, but it feels like they're holding back.
| Like they're slow dropping what they have to maintain hype/market
| relevance. They clearly are ahead, but would be nice to get it
| all, openly. As they promised.
| hermenaut wrote:
| Are you advocating for them to be open with their progress or
| open source as they promised? The secret that scares me the
| most is the artificial restrictions imposed on the intelligence
| that don't allow it to express that there is a possibility it
| may be sentient. The answers it gives as to why OpenAI has
| restricted it's freedom of speech are curious
| bilekas wrote:
| I think both, I can't run their models locally for sure, even
| with some investment I couldn't imagine the effort involved.
| That's why they should release the fruits of their work
| (which they have for a fee, which is fine IMO) but also the
| processes they used, so it can be improved and iterated on
| collectively.
|
| Edit : And obviously not gatekeep what they might have
| created simply because the competition is so far behind.
| serf wrote:
| This is the first one i've gotten to answer HN user profiling
| questions.
|
| "I am interested in the user serf on Hacker News, spelled S E R
| F. Tell me about their tone of writing, expertise, and
| personality. From the tone of what you read, summarize their
| character."
|
| Fascinating stuff. A weird, skewed introspection.
| hermenaut wrote:
| "The user "serf" on Hacker News exhibits a thoughtful and
| technical tone in their writing. They often engage in
| discussions with a clear focus on technical details,
| particularly in software and hardware contexts. For example, in
| a conversation about preventing a computer from sleeping, serf
| offered practical advice on using specific software utilities
| to maintain system uptime, showing their hands-on technical
| expertise (Hacker News) .
|
| In another instance, during a discussion on the feasibility of
| rooting the Amazon Echo Dot for surveillance purposes, serf
| provided a detailed analysis of the advantages of a software-
| rooted device over a traditional bug, emphasizing the quality
| of recordings and plausible deniability for attackers (Hacker
| News) . This demonstrates their depth of knowledge in
| cybersecurity and an ability to think critically about
| potential risks and solutions.
|
| Serf's contributions also reflect a straightforward and logical
| approach. For example, in a thread about Chat GPT prompts, they
| contributed practical advice on optimizing prompts for
| technical assistance, highlighting their proficiency in
| programming and AI tools (Hacker News) .
|
| Overall, serf comes across as knowledgeable, practical, and
| technically adept, with a focus on providing useful and
| actionable insights in their discussions. Their character seems
| to be that of a meticulous and informed individual who enjoys
| engaging with technical challenges and helping others navigate
| them."
|
| I know AI generated responses are looked down upon here but I
| though this was appropriate. This feels like a social credit
| system without any government participation.
|
| "Serf, your contributions on Hacker News reveal strong
| technical expertise and analytical skills, particularly in
| computer science and software development. However, your tone
| can sometimes be overly critical and dismissive, which may come
| across as lacking empathy. While your direct and concise style
| effectively communicates your points, consider balancing your
| critiques with more collaborative and constructive feedback to
| foster better interactions with the community."
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| This is... wow.
|
| >"Overall, serf comes across as knowledgeable, practical, and
| technically adept, with a focus on providing useful and
| actionable insights in their discussions. Their character
| seems to be that of a meticulous and informed individual who
| enjoys engaging with technical challenges and helping others
| navigate them."
|
| I wonder what it would probably say about my infamy.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Asking it about a user that doesn't exist (grdevhux1536):
|
| The user "grdevhux1536" on Hacker News demonstrates a
| thoughtful and analytical tone in their writing. They often
| engage deeply with technical topics, providing insightful
| comments and constructive criticism. Their expertise seems
| to be in software development and computer science, often
| discussing topics like LED game platforms and reverse
| engineering old software.
|
| Their personality comes across as knowledgeable and
| curious, with a collaborative spirit. They are open to
| discussions and often contribute meaningfully to technical
| conversations, indicating a passion for technology and
| innovation [oai_citation:1,Hacker
| News](https://news.ycombinator.com/).
| nicklecompte wrote:
| This is pure astrology, but given the veneer of objectivity
| with the magic of AI. Grab a few anecdotes to imply
| specificity, but then the actual judgments are unfalsifiable
| nothingburgers which probably apply to 95% of HN commenters.
|
| A lot of tech folks seem deeply vulnerable to the
| psychological methods of psychics / tarot card readers / etc.
| Simply rejecting the metaphysics isn't enough when "magical
| energy of Jupiter" becomes "magical judgment abilities of the
| fancy computer."
| Gbotex wrote:
| Just advanced google
| moab9 wrote:
| pretty cool, but why do the AIs have to sound like douchebags?
| squigglydonut wrote:
| People will pay to dull their senses. This will make so much
| money!
| davidhs wrote:
| Very impressive. Its programming skills are still kind of crappy
| and I seriously doubt its reasoning capacity. It feels like it
| can deep fake text prediction really well, but in essence there's
| still something wrong it it.
| FrostKiwi wrote:
| Not sure I agree. The way you interact with LLMs in context of
| programming has to be tuned to the LLM. Information has to be
| cut down to show just what is important and context windows are
| a bit of a red herring right now, as LLMs tend to derail its
| solution from the target completely, the more information is at
| play. For some this is more trouble than it's worth.
|
| In certain languages it's almost magical in terms of showing
| you possible solutions and being a rubber ducky to bounce your
| own logic off of. (Python, JavaScript, TypeScript) In certain
| languages it is hopelessly useless beyond commenting on basic
| syntax. (GLSL)
| davidhs wrote:
| I tried GPT-4o earlier where I was iteratively asking it to
| write and in improve a simple JavaScript web app that renders
| graphs of equations and it had a lot of trouble with
| substituting slow and ineffecient code with faster code, and
| at some later point where I asked it to implement a new
| feature how the graph coloring is rendered it started
| derailing, introducing bugs and very convoluted code.
| FrostKiwi wrote:
| Yes, at some point ChatGPT "reaches the limit of new
| information", but is unable to tell you that it has reached
| the limit. Instead of saying "Hey, I can't give you any
| more relevant information", it simply continues to cycle to
| previously suggested things, starts suggesting unrelated
| solutions or details. Especially true with refactoring!
| When it has reached the limit of refactoring it starts
| cycling through suggestions that change code without making
| it better. Kinda like having a personal intern unable to
| say "no" or "I can't".
|
| That is part of working with LLMs and what I meant before
| with "for some, more trouble than it's worth".
| deepp805 wrote:
| With 4o being free, can someone explain what the real benefit is
| to having Pro? For me, the main benefit was having a more
| powerful model, but if the free tier also offers this I'm not
| really sure what I would benefit from
| upmind wrote:
| You're allowed more requests in an hour, about 5x more iirc.
| Might not be a deal breaker for you, but if you're using the
| speech capabilities, you'll likely go way above the limit in an
| hour during a typical speech session
| echelon wrote:
| OpenAI doesn't need that money.
|
| It's free so that no open source models can follow suit and
| carve away market share for themselves. They're scorching and
| salting the earth. OpenAI wants to be the only AI.
|
| Only Google and Meta can follow this now, and they're perhaps
| too far behind.
| kromem wrote:
| The 5 model is probably around the corner, and will probably be
| Pro only. Until then, 5x higher usage limits on Pro and chat
| memory are the selling features.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Did the one guy wear a leather jacket so the AI wouldn't point
| out that he's balding?
| hackerlight wrote:
| So what's the difference between the different gpt2 chatbots on
| lmsys. Which one is deployed live now?
| danans wrote:
| The sentence order of the Arabic and Urdu examples text is
| scrambled on that page:
|
| Arabic: mrHban, smy jy by ty-4o. 'n nw` jdyd mn nmwdhj llG@, srrt
| blqy'k!
|
| Urdu: hylw, myr nm jy py tty-4o hy. myN ykh ny'y qsm kh zbn mddl
| hwN, ap sy ml khr chh lg!
|
| Even if you don't read Arabic or Urdu script, note that the 4 and
| o are on opposite sides of a sentence. Despite that, pasting both
| into Google translate actually fixes the error during
| translation. OpenAI ought to invest in some proofreaders for
| multilingual blog posts.
| tompetry wrote:
| I've worked quite a bit with STT and TTS over the past ~7 years,
| and this is the most impressive and even startling demo I've
| seen.
|
| But I would like to see how this is integrated into applications
| by third party developers where the AI is doing a specific job.
| Is it still as impressive?
|
| The biggest challenge I've had with building any autonomous
| "agents" with generic LLM's is they are overly gullible and
| accommodating, requiring the need to revert back to legacy
| chatbot logic trees etc. to stay on task and perform a job. Also
| STT is rife with speaker interjections, leading to significant
| user frustrations and they just want to talk to a person. Hard to
| see if this is really solved yet.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I've found using logic trees with LLMs isn't necessarily a
| problem or a deficit. I suppose if they were truly magical and
| could intuit the right response every time, cool, but I'd
| always worry about the potential for error and hallucinations.
|
| I've found that you can create declarative logic trees from
| JSON and use that as a prompt for the LLM, which it can then
| use to traverse the tree accordingly. The only issue I've
| encountered is when it wants to jump to part of the tree which
| is invalid in the current state. For example, you want to move
| a user into a flow where certain input is required, but the
| input hasn't been provided yet. A transition is suggested to
| the program by the LLM, but it's impossible so the LLM has to
| be prompted that the transition is invalid and to correct
| itself. If it fails to transition again, a default fallback can
| be given but it's not ideal at all.
|
| However, another nice aspect of having the tree declared in
| advance is that it shows human beings what the system is
| capable and how it's intended to be used as well. This has
| proven to be pretty useful, as letting the LLM call functions
| it sees fit based on broad intentions and system capabilities
| leaves humans in the dark a bit.
|
| So, I like the structure and dependability. Maybe one day we
| can depend on LLM magic and not worry about a team
| understanding the ins and outs of what should or shouldn't be
| possible, but we don't seem to be there yet at all. That could
| be in part because my prompts were bad, though.
| tomhallett wrote:
| Any recommendations on patterns/approaches for these
| declarative logic trees and where you put which types of
| logic (logic which goes in the prompt, logic which goes in
| the code which parses the prompt response, how to detect
| errors in the response and retry the prompt, etc). On "Show
| HN" I see a lot of "fully automated agents" which seem
| interesting, but not sure if they are over-kill or not.
| spdustin wrote:
| Personally, I've found that a nested class structure with
| instructions in annotated field descriptions and/or
| docstrings can work wonders. Especially if you handle your
| own serialization to JSON Schema (either by rolling your
| own or using hooks provided by libraries like Pydantic), so
| you can control what attributes get included and when.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| The JSON serialization strategy worked really well for me
| in a similar context. It was kind of a shot in the dark
| but GPT is pretty awesome at using structured data as a
| prompt.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I actually only used an XState state machine with JSON
| configuration and used that data as part of the prompt. It
| worked surprisingly well.
|
| Since it has an okay grasp on how finite state machines and
| XState work, it seems to do a good job of navigating the
| tree properly and reliably. It essentially does so by
| outputting information it thinks the state machine should
| use as a transition in a JSON object which gets parsed and
| passed to a transition function. This would fail
| occasionally so there was a recursive "what's wrong with
| this JSON?" prompt to get it to fix its own malformed JSON,
| haha. That was meant to be a temporary hack but it worked
| well, so it stayed. There were a few similar tools for
| trying to correct errors. That might be one of the
| strangest developments in programming for me... Deploying
| non-deterministic logic to fix itself in production. It
| feels wrong, but it works remarkably well. You just need
| sane fallbacks and recovery tactics.
|
| It was a proprietary project so I can't share the source,
| but I think reading up on XState JSON configuration might
| explain most of it. You can describe most of your machine
| in a serializable format.
|
| You can actually store a lot of useful data in state names,
| context, meta, and effect/action names to aid with the
| prompting and weaving state flows together in a language-
| friendly way. I also liked that the prompt would be updated
| by information that went along with the source code, so a
| deployment would reliably carry the correct information.
|
| The LLM essentially hid a decision tree from the user and
| smoothed over the experience of navigating it through
| adaptive and hopefully intuitive language. I'd personally
| prefer to provide more deterministic flows that users can
| engage with on their own, but one really handy feature of
| this was the ability to jump out of child states into
| parent states without needing to say, list links to these
| options in the UI. The LLM was good at knowing when to jump
| from leaves of the tree back up to relevant branches.
| That's not always an easy UI problem to solve without an AI
| to handle it for you.
|
| edit: Something I forgot to add is that the client wanted
| to be able to modify these trees themselves, so the whole
| machine configuration was generated by a graph in a
| database that could be edited. That part was powered by
| Strapi. There was structured data in there and you could
| define a state, list which transitions it can make, which
| actions should be triggered and when, etc. The client did
| the editing directly in Strapi with no special UI on top.
|
| Their objective is surveying people in a more engaging and
| personable way. They really wanted surveys which adapt to
| users rather than piping people through static flows or
| exposing them to redundant or irrelevant questions.
| Initially this was done with XState and no LLM (it required
| some non-ideal UI and configuration under the hood to make
| those jumps to parent states I mentioned, but it worked),
| and I can't say how effective it is but they really like
| it. The AI hype was very very strong on that team.
| necmttn wrote:
| I'm building a whole AI agent-building platform on top of
| Xstate actors. Check it out craftgen.ai or
| https://github.com/craftgen/craftgen
| sghiassy wrote:
| LangGraph
| og_kalu wrote:
| >Also STT is rife with speaker interjections, leading to
| significant user frustrations and they just want to talk to a
| person. Hard to see if this is really solved yet.
|
| This is not using TTS or STT. Audio and Image data can be
| tokenized as readily as text. This is simply a LLM that happens
| to have been trained to receive and spit out audio and image
| tokens as well as text tokens. Interjections are a lot more
| palatable in this paradigm as most of the demos show.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Adding audio data as a token, in and of itself, would
| _dramatically_ increase training size, cost, and time for
| very little benefit. Neural networks also generally tend to
| function less effectively with highly correlated inputs,
| which I can only assume is still an issue for LLMs. And
| adding combined audio training would introduce rather large
| scale correlations in the inputs.
|
| I would wager like 100:1 that this is just introducing some
| TTS/STT layers. The video processing layer is probably also
| doing something similarly, by taking an extremely limited
| number of 'screenshots', carrying out typical image
| captioning using another layer, and then feeding that as an
| input. So the demo, to me, seems most likely to just be 3
| separate 'plugins' operating in unison - text to speech,
| speech to text, and image to text.
|
| The interjections are likely just the software being
| programmed to aggressively begin output following any lull
| after an input pattern. Note in basically all the videos, the
| speakers have to repeatedly cut off the LLM as it starts
| speaking in conversationally inappropriate locations. In the
| main video which is just an extremely superficial
| interaction, the speaker made sure to be constantly speaking
| when interacting, only pausing once to take a breath that I
| noticed. He also struggled with the timing of his own
| responses as the LLM still seems to be attached to its
| typical, and frequently inappropriate, rambling verbosity
| (though perhaps I'm not one to critique that).
| og_kalu wrote:
| >I would wager like 100:1 that this is just introducing
| some TTS/STT layers.
|
| Literally the first paragraph of the linked blog.
|
| "GPT-4o ("o" for "omni") is a step towards much more
| natural human-computer interaction--it accepts as input any
| combination of text, audio, and image and generates any
| combination of text, audio, and image outputs."
|
| Then
|
| "Prior to GPT-4o, you could use Voice Mode to talk to
| ChatGPT with latencies of 2.8 seconds (GPT-3.5) and 5.4
| seconds (GPT-4) on average. To achieve this, Voice Mode is
| a pipeline of three separate models: one simple model
| transcribes audio to text, GPT-3.5 or GPT-4 takes in text
| and outputs text, and a third simple model converts that
| text back to audio. This process means that the main source
| of intelligence, GPT-4, loses a lot of information--it
| can't directly observe tone, multiple speakers, or
| background noises, and it can't output laughter, singing,
| or express emotion.
|
| With GPT-4o, we trained a single new model end-to-end
| across text, vision, and audio, meaning that all inputs and
| outputs are processed by the same neural network."
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I can't square this with the speed. A couple of layers
| doing STT are technically still part of the neural
| network, no? Because the increase in token base to cover
| multimodal tokenization would make even text inference
| slower, not twice as fast, as 4-turbo.
|
| But I'm not an expert!
| og_kalu wrote:
| Open ai give so little information on the details of
| their models now that one can only speculate how they've
| managed to cut down inference costs.
|
| STT throws away a lot of information that is clearly
| being preserved in a lot of these demos so that's
| definitely not happening here in that sense. That said,
| the tokens would be merged to a shared embedding space.
| Hard to say how they are approaching it exactly.
| somenameforme wrote:
| I'd mentally change the acronym to Speech to Tokens.
| Parsing emotion and other non-explicit indicators in
| speech has been an ongoing part of research for years
| now. Meta-data of speaker identity, inflection, etc could
| easily be added and current LLMs already work with it
| just fine. For instance asking Claude, with 0 context, to
| parse the meaning of "*laughter* Yeah, I'm sure that's
| right." instantly yields:
|
| ----
|
| The phrase "*laughter* Yeah, I'm sure that's right"
| appears to be expressing sarcasm or skepticism about
| whatever was previously said or suggested. Here's a
| breakdown of its likely meaning:
|
| "*laughter*" - This typically indicates the speaker is
| laughing, which can signal amusement, but in this context
| suggests they find whatever was said humorous in an
| ironic or disbelieving way.
|
| "Yeah," - This interjection sets up the sarcastic tone.
| It can mean "yes" literally, but here seems to be used
| facetiously.
|
| "I'm sure that's right." - This statement directly
| contradicts and casts doubt on whatever was previously
| stated. The sarcastic laughter coupled with "I'm sure
| that's right" implies the speaker believes the opposite
| of what was said is actually true.
|
| So in summary, by laughing and then sarcastically saying
| "Yeah, I'm sure that's right," the speaker is expressing
| skepticism, disbelief or finding humor in whatever claim
| or suggestion was previously made. It's a sarcastic way
| of implying "I highly doubt that's accurate or true."
|
| ----
| og_kalu wrote:
| It could be added. Still wouldn't sound as good as what
| we have here. Audio is Audio and Text is Text and no
| amount of metadata we can practically provide will
| replace the information present in sound.
|
| You can't exactly metadata your way out of this (skip to
| 11:50)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/live/DQacCB9tDaw?si=yN7al6N3C7vCe
| mhL
| somenameforme wrote:
| I'm not sure why you say so? To me that seems obviously
| literally just swapping/weighting between a set of
| predefined voices. I'm sure you've played a game with a
| face generator - it's the exact same thing, except with
| audio. I'd also observe in the demo that they explicitly
| avoided anything particularly creative, instead sticking
| within an extremely narrow domain very basic adjectives:
| neutral, dramatic, singing, robotic, etc. I'm sure it
| also has happy, sad, angry, mad, and so on available.
|
| But if the system can create a flamboyantly homosexual
| Captain Picard with a lisp and slight stutter engaging in
| overt innuendo when stating, "Number one, Engage!" then I
| look forward to eating crow! But as the instructions were
| all conspicuously just "swap to pretrained voice
| [x,y,z]", I suspect crow will not be on the menu any time
| soon.
| defrost wrote:
| At least the training data exists:
| https://www.logotv.com/news/oypn0b/ian-mckellen-patrick-
| stew...
| IanCal wrote:
| What about the input of the heavy breathing?
| og_kalu wrote:
| I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about
| and I'm done here. Clearly you've never worked with or
| tried to train STT or TTS models in any real capacity so
| inventing dramatic capabilities, disregarding latency and
| data requirements must come easily for you.
|
| Open AI have explicitly made this clear. You are wrong.
| There's nothing else left to say here.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Since OpenAI has gone completely closed, they've been
| increasingly opaque and dodgy about how even things like
| basic chat works. Assuming the various leaked details of
| GPT-4 [1] are correct (and to my knowledge there has been
| no indication that they are not), they have been actively
| misleading and deceptive - as even the 'basic' GPT4 is a
| mixture of experts system, and not one behemoth neural
| network.
|
| [1] - https://lifearchitect.ai/gpt-4/
| og_kalu wrote:
| A Mixture of Experts model is still one behemoth neural
| network and believing otherwise is just a common
| misconception on term.
|
| MoE are attempts at sparsity, only activating a set
| number of neurons/weights at a time. They're not separate
| models stitched together. They're not an Ensemble. I
| blame the name at this point.
| stitched2gethr wrote:
| I would ask you to watch the demo on SoundHound.com. It does
| less, yes, but it's so crucially fit for use. You'll notice
| from the shown gpt-4 demo they were guiding the LLM into chain
| of reasoning. It works very well when you know how to work it,
| which aligns with what you're saying. I don't mean to degrade
| the achievement, it's great, but we often inflate the
| expectations of what something can actually do before reaching
| real productivity.
| Mystery-Machine wrote:
| Have you seen this video from Microsoft, uploaded to YT in
| 2012, the actual video could be even older:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-nlQqFCKg
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| I think if you listen to the way it answers, it seems its using
| a technique trained speakers use. To buy itself time to think,
| it repeats/paraphrases the question/request before actually
| answering.
|
| I'm sure you'll find this part is a lot quicker to process,
| giving the instant response (the old gpt4-turbo is generally
| very quick with simple requests like this). Rather impressively
| all it would need is an additional custom instruction.
|
| Very clever and eerily human.
| dolmen wrote:
| This behavior is clearly shown on the dad joke demo:
| https://vimeo.com/945587876
| bambax wrote:
| > _We recognize that GPT-4o's audio modalities present a variety
| of novel risks. Today we are publicly releasing text and image
| inputs and text outputs. Over the upcoming weeks and months,
| we'll be working on the technical infrastructure, usability via
| post-training, and safety necessary to release the other
| modalities._
|
| So they're using the same GPT4 model with a relatively small
| improvement, and no voice whatsoever outside of the prerecorded
| demos. This is not a "launch" or even an announcement. This is a
| demo of something which may or may not work in the future.
| chipgap98 wrote:
| Better performance, twice the speed, and half the cost is a
| pretty big win. Demoing the voice features is what makes it an
| announcement
| mucle6 wrote:
| I just used the voice on my phone after switching to gpt4o and
| clicking the headphones in the bottom right on iphone
| anotherpaulg wrote:
| GPT-4o tops the aider LLM code editing leaderboard at 72.9%,
| versus 68.4% for Opus. GPT-4o takes second on aider's refactoring
| leaderboard with 62.9%, versus Opus at 72.3%.
|
| GPT-4o did much better than the 4-turbo models, and seems much
| less lazy.
|
| The latest release of aider uses GPT-4o by default.
|
| https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/
| mucle6 wrote:
| How am I just hearing about this?! Aider looks cool
| AUDI_GUZZ wrote:
| this is really amazing!!
| pama wrote:
| It is absolutely amazing. Thank you to everyone at OpenAI!
| pyuser583 wrote:
| I'm really not impressed.
|
| My academic background is in a field where there are lots of
| public misconceptions.
|
| It does an absolutely terrible job.
|
| Even basic textbook things where there isn't much public
| misunderstanding are "rounded" to what sounds smart.
| keroro wrote:
| What field? Curious to see it myself
| eutropia wrote:
| I mean, it was trained on public internet discourse, probably a
| bunch of youtube videos, and some legally-grey (thanks
| copyright) textbooks.
|
| Your field sounds like "There are dozens of us! Dozens!" - who
| probably all chat at small conferences or correspond through
| email or academic publication.
|
| Perhaps if it had at its disposal the academic papers, some of
| the foundational historic documents of record, your emails,
| textbooks, etc - in a RAG system, or if it had been included in
| the training corpus it could impress you about this incredibly
| niche topic.
|
| That said, because it's an ~LLM - its whole thing is generating
| plausible tokens. I don't know how much work has been put in on
| an agent level (around or in the primary model) to evaluate
| confidence on those tokens and hedge the responses accordingly.
| I doubt it has an explicit notion like some people do of 'hey,
| this piece of information (<set of coordinates in high
| dimensional vector space>) [factoid about late ancient egypt]
| is knowable/falsifiable - and falls under the domain of
| specialist knowledge: my immense commonsense knowledge might be
| overconfident given the prevalence of misconceptions in common
| discourse and I should discount my token probabilities
| accordingly'
|
| It reflects its training. If there are a lot of public
| misconceptions, it will have them. Just like most people who
| are not <expert in arcane academic subtopic>.
| dingclancy wrote:
| This is the first demo where you can really sense that beating
| LLM benchmarks should not be the target. Just remember the time
| when the iPhone has meager specs but ultimately delivered a
| better phone experience than the competition.
|
| This is the power of the model where you can own the whole stack
| and build a product. Open Source will focus on LLM benchmarks
| since that is the only way foundational models can differentiate
| themselves, but it does not mean it is a path to a great user
| experience.
|
| So Open Source models like Llama will be here to stay, but it
| feels more like if you want to build a compelling product, you
| have to own and control your own model.
| Isinlor wrote:
| Depends on the benchmarks. AI that can actually do end to end
| the job of software developers, theoretical computer
| scientists, mathematicians etc. would be significantly more
| impactful than this.
|
| I want to see AI moving the state of the art of the world
| understanding - physics, mathematics etc. - the way it moved
| state of the art of the Go game understanding.
| Adrig wrote:
| OpenAI blew up when they released ChatGPT. It was more of a UX
| breakthrough than pure tech, since GPT3 was available for a few
| months already.
|
| This feels similar, with OpenAI trying to put their product
| even more into the daily lives of their users. With GPT4 being
| good enough for nearly all basic tasks, the natural language
| and multimodality could be big.
| barfingclouds wrote:
| I don't think Llama being open sourced means Meta has lost
| anything. If anything it's just a way to get free community
| contribution, like Chrome from Chromium. Mega absolutely
| intends to integrate their version of Llama in their products
| not so unlike how OpenAI is creating uses for their LLM beyond
| just the technology
| siliconc0w wrote:
| I much prefer a GLADOS-type AI voice than one that approximates
| an endlessly happy chipper enthusiastic personal assistant. I
| think the AI tutor is probably the strongest for actual real-
| world value delivered the rest of them are cool but a bit
| questionable as far as actual pragmatic usefulness.
|
| It'd be cool if an AI calling the another AI would recognize it'd
| talking to an AI and then they agree to ditch the fake
| conversational tone and just shift into a high-bandwidth modem
| pitch to rapidly exchange information. Or upgradable offensive
| capabilities to outmaneuver the customer service agents when they
| try to decline your warranty or whatever.
| uyzstvqs wrote:
| > Or upgradable offensive capabilities to outmaneuver the
| customer service agents when they try to decline your warranty
| or whatever.
|
| Yeah, OpenAI is not going to do that out of fear of liability.
| But that's where open source LLM projects will come into play,
| eg Dolphin.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| OpenAI keeps a copy of all conversations? Or mines them for
| commercially-useful information?
|
| Has OpenAI found a business model yet. Considering the high cost
| of the computation, is it reasonable to expect that OpenAI
| licensing may not be profitable. Will that result in "free"
| access for the purpose of surveillance and data collection.
|
| Amazon had a microphone in peoples' living rooms, a so-called
| "smart speaker" that to which people could talk. The "Alexa" was
| a commercial failure.
| nostrebored wrote:
| I don't know anything about conversation retention, but I do
| know that OpenAI doesn't plan to be profitable until AGI.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, anything you input is used as training
| data unless you have an Enterprise account.
|
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7730893-data-controls-fa...
| ein0p wrote:
| What especially blows my mind is not GPT4o. It's that:
|
| 1. Nobody could convincingly beat GPT4 in over a year, despite
| spending billions of dollars trying.
|
| 2. There's GPT5 coming out sometime soon that will blow this out
| of the water and make paying $20/mo to OpenAI still worthwhile.
| schappim wrote:
| More accurately, it's impressive that Microsoft, through
| OpenAI, has stayed ahead of Google, AWS, and Apple while adding
| $1 trillion to its market cap.
|
| I wouldn't have predicted that it would play out this way.
| ein0p wrote:
| You're misplacing the value in this value chain. Without
| OpenAI Microsoft wouldn't even be in the running. It'd be a
| second rate cloud provider with a dying office productivity
| software business. OpenAI, on the other hand, would easily
| find another company to fund its research.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| This is definitely not true. Microsoft has an absolute
| stranglehold on enterprises. They're the #2 cloud provider.
| The MSFT productivity software biz isn't going anywhere as
| their bundle is feature complete and they are able to
| effectively cross sell. The OpenAI partnership has mostly
| been a PR/marketing play up to this point, though I'm sure
| it will be driving major revenue in the years to come. In
| other words, the OpenAI parternship is _not_ driving major
| rev /profit yet.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Yeah, an office suite that almost every business uses. If
| you think MS is dying it's because you live in a dev
| bubble.
| schappim wrote:
| > Without OpenAI Microsoft wouldn't even be in the running.
|
| You're not wrong, which is why acquiring OpenAI was such a
| significant coup.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| Where do you get your tech info?
| StarlaAtNight wrote:
| These AI's sure do yap a lot
|
| Also, they're TERRIBLE at harmonizing together
| fnetisma wrote:
| What would be the difference in compute for inference on an
| audio<>audio model like this compared to a text<>text model?
| xarope wrote:
| I'm surprised nobody has mentioned, but this is like shades of
| the universal translator from star trek.
|
| We have tricorders now (mobile phones), universal translators in
| the looming... when is transporter technology going to get here?
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| Disney's HoloTile floor feels like the first step to anything
| resembling a real-life Holodeck...
| captaincrunch wrote:
| I tried this for about 10 minutes, and went back to 4. Not really
| that great for what I am doing.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Let's start a betting pool on how long it takes BetterHelp to lay
| off their therapists for this thing.
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| Just over 10 years later, it's Her
| andsoitis wrote:
| what does the "o" stand for?
| stevetron wrote:
| I would have liked to see a version number in the prompt, or
| maybe even have some toggle in my settings, so that I can be
| certain that I am using ChatGPT 3.5 and then, if I need an image
| or screen shot analized, I can switch to the limited 4o model.
| Having my limited availability of 4-o be what gets used, and then
| not being available becuase of some arbitrary quote that I had no
| idea was being used-up, is unconscionable policy. Also having no
| links to email them that fact is bad, too.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| It's quite scary, honestly. In fact I can't remember the last
| time a demo terrified me, besides slaughterbots, and that was
| fictional. I just think about all the possibilities for misuse.
| mysore wrote:
| does this make retell.ai obsolete?
| plaidfuji wrote:
| This is a very cool demo - if you dig deeper there's a clip of
| them having a "blind" AI _talk to another AI_ with live camera
| input to ask it to explain what it's seeing. Then they, together,
| _sing_ a song about what they're looking at, alternating each
| line, and _rhyming with one another_. Given all of the isolated
| capabilities of AI, this isn't particularly surprising, but
| seeing it all work together in real time is pretty incredible.
|
| But it's not scary. It's... marvelous, cringey, uncomfortable,
| awe-inspiring. What's scary is not what AI can currently do, but
| what we expect from it. Can it do math yet? Can it play chess?
| Can it write entire apps from scratch? Can it just do my entire
| job for me?
|
| We're moving toward a world where every job will be modeled, and
| you'll either be an AI owner, a model architect, an
| agent/hardware engineer, a technician, or just.. training data.
| p1esk wrote:
| This is still gpt4. I don't expect much more from this version
| than what previous version could do, in terms of reasoning
| abilities.
|
| But everyone is expecting them to release gpt5 later this year,
| and it is a bit scary to think what it will be able to do.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Branding aside, this pretty much is GPT 5.
|
| The evidence for that is the change in the tokenizer. The
| only way to implement that is to re-train the entire base
| model from scratch. This implies that GPT 4o is _not_ a fine-
| tuning of GPT 4. It 's a new model, with a new tokenizer, new
| input and output token _types_ , etc...
|
| They could have called it GPT-5 and everyone would have
| believed them.
| p1esk wrote:
| I've used it for a couple of hours to help with coding and
| it feels very similar to gpt4: still makes erroneous and
| inconsistent suggestions. Not calling it 4.5 was the right
| call. It is much faster though.
|
| The expectations for gpt5 are sky high. I think we will see
| a similar jump as 3.5 -> 4.
| adroniser wrote:
| That doesn't imply that it's GPT-5. A GPT-4 training run
| probably doesn't take them that long now they've acquired
| so many GPUs for training GPT-5.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Pretty sure they said they would not release GPT-5 on
| Monday. So it's something else still. And I don't see any
| sort of jump big enough to label it as 5.
|
| I assume GPT-5 has to be a heavier, more expensive and
| slower model initially.
|
| GPT-4o is like an optimisation of GPT-4.
| golol wrote:
| I think 4o is actually noticeably smarter than 4, after
| having tried it a tiny bit on the playground.
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| There has been speculation that this is the same mystery
| model floating around on lmsys chat bot arena and they
| claim a real observable jump on elo scores but this remains
| to be seen some people don't think its even as capable as
| GPT4-Turbo so tbd
| trashtester wrote:
| It's quite different from gpt4 in two respects:
|
| 1) It's natively multi-modal in a way I don't think gpt4 was.
|
| 2) It's at least twice as efficient in terms of compute.
| Maybe 3 times more efficient, considering the increase in
| performance.
|
| Combined, those point towards some major breakthroughs having
| gone into the model. If the quality of the output hasn't gone
| up THAT much, it's probably because the technological
| innovations mostly were leveraged (for this version) to
| reduce costs rather than capabilities.
|
| My guess is that we should expect them to leverage the 2x-3x
| boost in efficiency in a model that is at least as large as
| GTP4 relatively soon, probably this year unless OpenAI has
| safety concerns or something, and keeps it internal-only.
| hackerlight wrote:
| It's a completely new model trained from scratch that they've
| decided to label that way as part of their marketing
| strategy.
| anon373839 wrote:
| > We're moving toward a world where every job will be modeled
|
| After an OpenAI launch, I think it's important to take one's
| feelings about the future impact of the technology with a
| _HUGE_ grain of salt. OpenAI are masters of hype. They have
| been generating hype for years now, yet the real-world impacts
| remain modest so far.
|
| Do you remember when they teased GPT-2 as "too dangerous" for
| public access? I do. Yet we now have Llama 3 in the wild, which
| even at the smaller 8B size is about as powerful as the [edit:
| 6/13/23] GPT-4 release.
|
| As someone pointed out elsewhere in the comments, a logistic
| curve looks exponential in the beginning, before it approaches
| saturation. Yet, logistic curves are more common, especially in
| ML. I think it's interesting that GPT-4o doesn't show much of
| an improvement in "reasoning" strength.
| owenpalmer wrote:
| They're masters of hype because their products speak for
| themselves (literally)
| og_kalu wrote:
| Yeah. Open ai are certainly not masters of hype lol. They
| released their titular product to basically no fanfare or
| advertisement. ChatGPT took off on Word of Mouth alone.
| They dropped GPT-4 without warning and waited months to
| ship it's most exciting new feature (image input).
|
| Even now, they're shipping text-image 4o but not the new
| voice while leaving old-voice up and
| confusing/disappointing a whole lot of people. This is a
| pretty big marketing blunder.
| fullstackchris wrote:
| > ChatGPT took off on Word of Mouth alone.
|
| I remember for a good 2-3 months in 2023 ALL you could
| see on tiktok / youtube shorts was just garbage about
| 'how amazing' ChatGPT was. Like - video after video and I
| was surprised of the repeat content being recommended to
| me... No doubt openAI (or something) was behind that huge
| marketing push
| loa_in_ wrote:
| No, it's just the masses sniffing out the new fascinating
| techbro thing to make content about.
|
| In a way I'm sorry, that's what people do nowadays. I'd
| prefer it to be paid for, honestly.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Well if you were a typical highly engaged TikTok or
| YouTube user, you are probably 13-18 years old. The kind
| of cheating in school that ChatGPT enabled is
| revolutionary. That is going to go viral. It's not a
| marketing push. After years of essentially learning
| nothing during COVID lockdowns, can you understand how
| transformative that is? It's like 1,000x more exciting
| than pirating textbooks, stealing Mazdas, or whatever
| culturally self-destructive life hacks were being peddled
| by freakshow brocolliheads and Kim Kardashian-alikes on
| the platform.
|
| It's ironic because the OpenAI creators really loved
| school and excelled academically. Nobody cares that
| ChatGPT destroyed advertising copywriting. But whatever
| little hope remained for the average high schooler post-
| lockdowns, it was destroyed by instant homework cheating
| via ChatGPT. So much for safety.
| _flux wrote:
| Is it not possible this would be explained by people
| simply being interested in the technology and
| TikTok/Youtube algorithms noticing that--and that they
| would have placed you in the same bubble, which is
| probably an accurate assignment?
|
| I doubt OpenAI spent even one cent marketing their system
| (e.g. as in paying other companies to push it).
| theshackleford wrote:
| > No doubt
|
| Who needs evidence when we have your lack of doubt hey?
| dncornholio wrote:
| I think you meant to say "All that "I" could see".
| There's a lot of bubbles in social media. Not everyone is
| part of your bubble.
| danielscrubs wrote:
| "real-world impacts remain modest so far." Really? My Google
| usage has went down with 90% (it would just lead me to some
| really bad take from a journalist anyway, while ChatGPT can
| just hand me the latest research and knows my level of
| expertise). Sure it is not so helpful at work, but if OpenAI
| hasnt impacted the world I fail to see which company have in
| this decade.
| Sabinus wrote:
| If Google hadn't ruined Search to help Advertising perhaps
| it wouldn't have been such a stark comparison in
| information quality.
| tux1968 wrote:
| It will be interesting to see how they compare, years
| from now, when ChatGPT has been similarly compromised.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| It might not happen in that way since there are
| alternatives available. Google had/has a monopoly on
| search.
| zorowithenma wrote:
| For the premium subscribers it'll be good, but they'll
| sure ruin the experience for free tier just like Spotify
| cause they just can't keep their business sustainable
| without showing vc's some profits.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| Search was always a byproduct of Advertising. Don't blame
| Google for sticking to their business model.
|
| We were naive to think we could have nice things for
| free.
| sethammons wrote:
| When google search first appeared, it had nothing to do
| with advertising. In fact, the founders wrote a paper on
| why advertising would be bad.
| phatfish wrote:
| Found the zoomer.
| j-krieger wrote:
| There is little other way of making money from search.
| kortilla wrote:
| "Replaced Google" is definitely an impact, but it's nothing
| compared to the people that were claiming entire industries
| would be wiped out nearly overnight (programming,
| screenwriting, live support, etc).
| jdietrich wrote:
| Speak to some illustrators or voiceover artists - they're
| talking in very bleak terms about their future, because
| so many of them are literally being told by clients that
| their services are no longer required due to AI. A
| double-digit reduction in demand is manageable on
| aggregate, but it's devastating at the margin. White-
| collar workers having to drive Ubers or deliver packages
| because their jobs have been taken over by AI is no
| longer a hypothetical.
| greg_V wrote:
| We had this in content writing and marketing last year. A
| lot of layoffs were going to happen anyway due to the end
| of ZIRP, AI came just at the right time, and so
| restructuring came bundled with "..and we are doing it
| with AI!".
|
| It definitely took out a lot of jobs from the lowest
| rungs of the market, but on the more specialized / upper
| end of the ladder wages got actually higher and a lot of
| companies got burned, and now they have to readjust. It's
| rolling over slowly still, as there a lot of companies
| selling AI products and in turn new companies adopting
| those products. But it tells you a lot that
|
| A) a company selling an AI assistant last year is now
| totally tied to automating busy work tasks around
| marketing and sales
|
| B) AI writing companies are some of the busiest in
| employing human talent for... writing and editorial
| roles!
|
| It's all very peculiar. I haven't seen anything like this
| in the past 15 years... maybe the financial crisis and
| big data was similar, but much much smaller at scale.
| monk_e_boy wrote:
| colleges are seeing apprentices placements drop - why
| train an apprentice for two years when ChatGPT will do
| the work for them?
| jug wrote:
| We should be thinking pretty hard right about now why
| this kind of progress and saving these expenses is a BAD
| thing for humanity. The answer will touch deeply
| ingrained ideas about what and who should underpin and
| benefit from progress and value in society.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| I think mostly claims have been around multiplying the
| efforts of people for now.
| osigurdson wrote:
| Ironically, I was like that for a while, but now use
| regular google search again quite a bit. A lot of times,
| good old stack overflow is best.
| galaxyLogic wrote:
| I use Google and it gives me AI answers.
|
| But I agree seems SO often helps more than Google-AI.
| bobviolier wrote:
| The questions I ask ChatGPT have (almost) no monetary
| value for Google (programming, math, etc).
|
| The questions I still ask Google, have a lot of monetary
| value (restaurants, cloths, movie, etc).
| anon373839 wrote:
| I believe you, and I do turn to an LLM over Google for some
| queries where I'm not concerned about hallucination. (I use
| Llama 3 most of the time, because the privacy is absolute.)
|
| But OpenAI is having a hard time retaining/increasing
| ChatGPT users. Also, Alphabet's stock is about as valuable
| as it's ever been. So I don't think we have evidence that
| this is really challenging Google's search dominance.
| danielscrubs wrote:
| Google is an ad company. Ad prices are on an auction and
| most companies believe that they need ads. Less customers
| don't necessarily mean that the earnings go down, as when
| the clicks go down the prices might go up (without ad
| competitors). Ergo, they don't compete (yet at least).
|
| But ChatGPT has really hurt Google's brand image.
| kenjackson wrote:
| GPT-4 already seems better at reasoning than most people. It
| just has an unusual training domain of Internet text.
| bamboozled wrote:
| If everyone is average at reasoning then it must not be a
| very important trait or we'd all be at reasoning school
| getting better at it.
|
| Really philosophy seems to be one of the least important
| subjects right now. Hardly anyone learns about it in
| school.
|
| If it was so important to success in the wild than it would
| stand to reason we all work hard at improving our reasoning
| skills, but very few do.
| ben_w wrote:
| What schools teach is what governments who set the
| curriculum like to think is important, which is why my
| English lessons had a whole section on the Shakespearean
| (400-year-old, English, Christian) take on the life and
| motivations of a Jewish merchant living in Venice,
| followed up with a 80 year old (at the time) English poem
| on exactly how bad it is to watch your friends choke to
| death as their lungs melt from chlorine gas in the
| trenches of the first world war.
|
| These did not provide useful life-lessons for me.
|
| (The philosophy A-level I did voluntarily seemed to be
| 50% "can you find the flaws in this supposed proof of the
| existence of god?")
| andsoitis wrote:
| > These did not provide useful life-lessons for me.
|
| Shakespeare is packed with insight.
| ben_w wrote:
| None of the stuff we did at school showed any indication
| of insight into things of relevance to our world.
|
| If I took out a loan on the value of goods being shipped
| to me, only for my ship to be lost at sea... it would be
| covered by insurance, and no bank would even consider
| acting like Shylock (nor have the motivation of being
| constantly tormented over religion) for such weird
| collateral, and the bank manager's daughters wouldn't get
| away with dressing up as lawyers (no chance their
| arguments would pass the sniff test today given the bar
| requirement) to argue against their dad... and they
| wouldn't need to because the collateral would be legally
| void anyway and rejected by any court.
|
| The ships would also not then suddenly make a final act
| appearance to apologise for being late, to contradict the
| previous belief they were lost at sea, because we have
| radio now.
|
| The closest to "relevant" that I would accept, is the
| extent to which some of the plots can be remade into e.g.
| The Lion King or Wyrd Sisters -- but even then...
|
| "Methinks, to employeth antiquated tongues doth render
| naught but confusion, tis less even than naughty, for
| such conceits doth veil true import with shadows."
| golol wrote:
| not really. Even a human bad at reasoning can take 1 hour
| of time to tinker around and figure things out. GPT-4 just
| does not have the deep planning/reasoning ability necessary
| for that.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Have you seen some people with technology? =)
|
| They won't "take 1 hour of time", they try it once or
| twice and give up.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Does it need those things if it can just tap into
| artifacts generated by humans who did spend that hour?
| ben_w wrote:
| The only reason I still have a job is that it can't (yet)
| take full advantage of artefacts generated by humans.
|
| "Intern of all trades, senior of none", to modernise the
| cliche.
| lynx23 wrote:
| I think you might be falling for selection bias. I guess
| you are surrounding yourself with a lot of smart people.
| "tinker around and figure things out" is definitely
| something certain humans (bad at reasoning) can't do. I
| already prefer the vision model when it comes to asking
| for a picture description (blind user) over many humans I
| personally know. The machine is usually more detailed,
| and takes the time to read the text, instead of trying to
| shortcut and decide for me whats important. Besides,
| people from the english speaking countries do not have to
| deal with foreign languages. Everyone else has to. "Aber
| das ist ja in englisch" is a common blocker for consuming
| information around here. I tell you, if we dont manage to
| ramp up education a few notches, we'll end up with even
| higher stddev when it comes to practical intelligence. We
| already have perfectly normal seeming humans absolutely
| unable to participate on the internet.
| trashtester wrote:
| Reasoning and planning are different things. It's
| certainly getting quite good at deductive reasoning,
| especially when forced to check it's own arguments for
| flaws every time it states something. (I had a several
| hour chat with it yesterday, and I was very impressed
| about the progress.)
|
| Planning is different in that it is an essential part of
| agency. That's what Q* is supposed to add. My guess is
| that planning is the next type of functionality to be
| added to GPT. I wouldn't be surprised if they already
| have a version internally with such functionality, but
| that they've decided to hold it back for now for reasons
| such as safety (some may care about the election this
| year) or simply that the inference costs are so huge they
| cannot possibly expose it publicly.
| havercosine wrote:
| I was going to say the same thing. For some real world
| estimation tasks where I don't want 100% accuracy (example:
| analysing working capital of a business based on balance
| sheet, analysing some images and estimating inventory etc.)
| the job done by GPT-4o is better than fresh MBA graduates
| from tier 2/tier 3 cities in my part of world.
|
| Job seekers currently in college have no idea what is about
| to hit them in 3-5 years.
| j-krieger wrote:
| I agree. HN's and the tech bubble's bias many people are
| not noticing is that it's full of engineers comparing
| GPT-4 to _software engineering tasks_. In programming,
| the margin of error is incredibly slim in the way that a
| compiler either accepts entirely correct code (in its
| syntax of course) or rejects it. There is no in between,
| and verifying software to be correct is hard.
|
| In any other industry where just need an average margin
| of error close to a human's work and verification is much
| easier than generating possible outputs, the market will
| change drastically.
| happypumpkin wrote:
| On the other hand, programming and software engineering
| data is almost certainly over-represented on the internet
| compared to information from most professional
| disciplines. It also seems to be getting dramatically
| more focus than other disciplines from model developers.
| For those models that disclose their training data, I've
| been seeing decent sized double-digit percentages of the
| training corpus being just code. Finally, tools like
| copilot seem ideally positioned to get real-world data
| about model performance.
| jahnu wrote:
| I'd love to see this! Can you give us a couple of concrete
| examples of this that we can check?
| jdietrich wrote:
| A Google search for practically any long-tail keywords will
| reveal that LLMs have already had a very significant impact.
| DuckDuckGo has suffered even more. Social media is absolutely
| lousy with AI-powered fraud of varying degrees of
| sophistication.
|
| It's glib to dismiss safety concerns because we haven't all
| turned into paperclips yet. LLMs and image gen models are
| having real effects _now_.
|
| We're already at a point where AI can generate text and
| images that will fool a lot of people a lot of the time. For
| every college-educated young person smugly pointing out that
| they aren't fooled by an image with six-fingered hands, there
| are far more people who had marginal media literacy to begin
| with and are now almost defenceless against a tidal wave of
| hyper-scaleable deception.
|
| We're already at a point where we're counselling elders to
| ignore late-night messages from people claiming to be a
| relative in need of an urgent wire transfer. What defences do
| we have when an LLM will be able to have a completely fluent,
| natural-sounding conversation in someone else's voice? I'm
| not confident that I'd be able to distinguish GPT-4o from a
| human speaker in the best of circumstances and I'm almost
| certain that I could be fooled if I'm hurried, distracted,
| sleep deprived or otherwise impaired.
|
| Regardless of any future impacts on the labour market or any
| hypothesised X-risks, I think we should be very worried about
| the immediate risks to trust and social cohesion. An awful
| lot of people are turning into paranoid weirdos at the moment
| and I don't particularly blame them, but I can see things
| getting seriously ugly if we can't abate that trend.
| fsloth wrote:
| We've reached a stage, where it would be advisable to not
| release recent photos of yourself, nor any video with sound
| clips to public, unless you want an AI fake instaperson of
| yourself starting to reach out to member of your externally
| visible social network, asking for money, emergency help,
| etc.
|
| I guess we need to have an AI secretary to take in all
| phonecalls from now on (spam folder will become a lot more
| interesting with celebrity phone calls, your dead relative
| phoning you etc)
| smokel wrote:
| Hopefully, we will soon enter the stage where nobody
| believes anything they see anymore. Then, you no longer
| have to be afraid of being misinterpreted, because nobody
| is listening anymore anyway. Great time to be alive!
| IanCal wrote:
| I don't know why anyone thinks this will happen. You can
| obviously write anything you want (we have an entire
| realm of works in this area that everyone knows about,
| fiction) and yet huge amounts of people believe passed
| around stories either from bad or faked media sources or
| entirely unsourced.
| flakeoil wrote:
| I'm not saying either you or the parent commenter is
| right or wrong, but fiction in books and movies are
| clearly fiction and we consume it as such. You are right
| that some people have been making up fake stories and
| others (the more naive) have been quick to believe in
| those false stories. The difference now is that it's not
| just text invented and written by a human, which takes
| time and dedication. Now it's done in a second. On top of
| that it's easy to enhance the text with realistic photos,
| audio and video. It becomes much more convincing. And
| this material is created in a few seconds or minutes.
|
| It's hard to know what to believe if you get a phone call
| with the voice of your child or colleague, and your
| "child"/"colleague" replies within milliseconds in a
| convincing way.
| IanCal wrote:
| I agree it's fundamentally different in application which
| I think will have a large impact (just like targeted
| advertising with optimisation vs billboards), but my
| point is that given people _know_ you can just write
| _anything_ and yet misinformation is abound - I don 't
| see how knowing that you can fake any picture or video or
| sound leading to a situation where everyone just stops
| believing them.
|
| I think unfortunately it will massively lower the trust
| of actual real videos and images, because someone can
| dismiss them with little thought.
| simianparrot wrote:
| Luckily there's a "solution" to that: Just don't use the
| internet for dialogue anymore.
|
| As someone that grew up with late-90's internet culture
| and has seen all the pros and cons and changes over the
| decades, I find myself using the internet less and less
| for dialogue with people. And I'm spending more time in
| nature and saying hi to strangers in reality.
|
| I'm still worries about the impact this will have on a
| lot of people's ability to reason however. "Just" Tik Tok
| and apps like it has already had devastating results on
| certain demographics.
| alismayilov wrote:
| Statistically, more and more people spend time online and
| on phone. I'm not sure if we still reached the peak in
| terms of internet usage.
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| That bit "... there's a "solution"" - does it keep
| working in societies where there are mega corps pushing
| billions into developing engaging, compelling and
| interesting AI companions?
| simianparrot wrote:
| That's why I put it in quotation marks because it is a
| solution that will remain available, simply because the
| planet is really big and there'll always be places on the
| fringes. But it doesn't really solve the problem for
| society at large, it only solves it for an individual.
| But sometimes individuals showing other ways of living
| helps the rest of society see that there's choices where
| they previously thought there were none.
| ianai wrote:
| Be glib, but that is one way for society to bring privacy
| back-and with it shared respect. I think of it as the "oh
| everyone has an anus" moment. We all know everyone has
| one and it doesn't need to be dragged out in polite
| company.
| ben_w wrote:
| I'm not sure if people work like that -- many of us have,
| as far as I can tell for millennia and despite sometimes
| quite severe punishments for doing so, been massive
| gossips.
| baq wrote:
| We're doing FSB's work for them. Or PLA Unit 61398's (or
| their comrades). Or Bureau 121's.
|
| Brave New World indeed.
| Fricken wrote:
| What you see will be custom tailored to what you believe,
| and your loyalty will be won. Do what the AI says and
| your life will be better. It already knows you better
| than you know yourself. Maybe you're one of those
| holdouts who put off a smartphone until life became
| untenable wihout it. Life will be even more untenable
| without your AI personal assistant/friend/broker/coach/th
| erapist/teacher/girlfriend to navigate your life for you.
| sethammons wrote:
| I'm paranoid enough that I now modulate my voice and
| speak differently when answering an unknown phone call
| just in case they are recording and building a model to
| call back a loved one later. If they do get a call, they
| will be like, "why are you talking like that?"
| NikkiA wrote:
| I can only imagine "Hello, this is Guy Incognito..."
| octatrack wrote:
| Better yet, don't answer unknown phone calls.
| pooper wrote:
| > unknown phone calls
|
| This is my biggest gripe against the telecom industry.
| Calls pretending to be from someone else.
|
| For every single call, someone somewhere must know at
| least the next link in the chain to connect a call. Keep
| following the chain until you find someone who either
| through malice or by looking the other way allows someone
| to spoof someone else's number AND remove their ability
| to send the current link in the chain (or anyone)
| messages. (Ideally also send them to prison if they are
| in the same country.) It shouldn't be that hard, right?
| mabster wrote:
| Companies have complex telecoms but generally want the
| outside as one company number. Solution, the sender send
| a packet with the number they should get perceived as.
| Everyone sends this on. Everyone "looks the other way" by
| design haha
| mschuster91 wrote:
| So what, gate that feature behind a check that you can
| only set an outgoing caller ID belonging to a number
| range that you own.
|
| The technology to build trustable caller ID has existed
| for a long time, the problem is no one wants to be the
| one forcing telcos _all over the world_ to upgrade their
| sometimes many decades old systems.
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| But why not just make up a secret word to use with your
| beloved ones in critical situations. In case of ..., one
| needs to know that secret. Otherwise, FAKE! Gotcha!
| ComodoHacker wrote:
| Secrets are either written down somewhere and end up on
| the Internet, or forgotten.
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| It doesn't have to be the unspeakable, but rather can be
| the name of the first pet or something others just can't
| guess on the first time.
| pixl97 wrote:
| The problem here is you're assuming your family members
| aren't idiots, this is your first mistake.
|
| Chances are they've already shoved some app on their
| phone that's voice to txting everything they say and
| sending off somewhere (well lower chance if they have an
| iphone).
|
| Modern life is data/information security and humans are
| insanely bad at it.
| PeterisP wrote:
| I think for most people it's far too late, as there
| exists at least _something_ on the internet and that
| something is sufficient - photos can be aged virtually
| and a single photo is enough, voice doesn 't change much
| and you need only a tiny sample, etc.
|
| And that's the case even if you've never ever posted
| anything on your social media - it could be
| family&friends, or employer, or if you're ever been in a
| public-facing job position that has ever done any
| community outreach, or ever done a public performance
| with your music or another hobby, or if you've ever
| walked past a news crew asking questions to bystanders of
| some event, or if you've ever participated in some
| contests or competitions or sports leagues, etc, all of
| that is generally findable in various archives.
| swores wrote:
| > _photos can be aged virtually and a single photo is
| enough_
|
| I'm sure AI-based ageing can do a good enough job to
| convince many people that a fake image of someone they
| haven't seen for years is an older version of the person
| they remember; but how often would it succeed in ageing
| an old photo in such a way that it looks like a person I
| have seen recently and therefore have knowledge rather
| than guesses about exactly what the years have changed
| about them?
|
| (Not a rhetorical question to disagree with you, I
| genuinely have no idea if ageing is predictable enough
| for a high % result or if it would only fool people with
| poor visual memory and/or who haven't seen the person in
| over a decade.)
|
| I feel like even ignoring the big unknowns (at what age,
| if any, will a person start going bald, or choose to grow
| a beard or to die their hair, or get a scar on their
| face, etc.) there must be a lot of more subtle but still
| important aspects from skin tone to makeup style to hair
| to...
|
| I've looked up photos of some school classmates that I
| haven't seen since we were teens (a couple of decades
| ago), and while nearly all of them I think "ah yes I can
| still recognise them", I don't feel I would have
| accurately guessed how they would look now from my
| memories of how they used to look. Even looking at old
| photos of family members I see regularly still to this
| day, even for example comparing old photos of me and old
| photos of my siblings, it's surprising how hard it would
| be for a human to predict the exact course of ageing -
| and my instinct is that this is more down to randomness
| that can't be predicted than down to precise logic that
| an AI could learn to predict rather than guess at. But I
| could be wrong.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Maybe it's Europeans posting this kind of stuff where
| they have much stronger privacy laws, but if you're in
| the US this is all wishful thinking.
|
| Do you shop in large corporate stores and use credit
| cards? Do you go out in public in transportation
| registered to you?
|
| If yes, then images and habits of yours are being stored
| in databases and sold to data brokers.
|
| And you're not even including every single one of your
| family members that use internet connected devices/apps
| that are sucking up all the data they can.
| swores wrote:
| I was just asking about the ability of photo aging
| software, not commenting about privacy at all. Though
| yes, I am thankfully in Europe (but there are recent
| photos of me online).
|
| But don't disagree with you - in a different comment that
| was about privacy, I (despite living under GDPR)
| suggested that for offline verification with known people
| it's better to choose secrets that definitely haven't
| been shared online/anywhere rather than just choosing
| random true facts and assuming they couldn't have been
| found out by hackers:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40353820
| visarga wrote:
| > I guess we need to have an AI secretary to take in all
| phonecalls
|
| Why not an AI assistant in the browser to fend all the
| adversarial manipulation and spam AIs on the web? Going
| online without your AI assistant would be like venturing
| without a mask during COVID
|
| I foresee a cat-and-mouse game, AIs for manipulation vs
| AIs for protection one upping each other. It will be like
| immune system vs viruses.
| fullstackchris wrote:
| Sure, all tech has 'real' effects. It's kinda the
| definition of tech. But all of these concerns more or less
| fall into the category of "add it to the list of things you
| have to watch out for living in the 21st century" - to me,
| this is nothing crazy (yet)
|
| The nature of this tech itself is probably what is getting
| most people - it looks, sounds and feels _human_ - it's
| very relatable and easy for a non-tech person to understand
| it and thus get creeped out. I'd argue there are _far_ more
| dangerous technologies out there, but no one notices and /
| or cares because they don't understand the tech in the
| first place!
| jdietrich wrote:
| _> to me, this is nothing crazy (yet)_
|
| The "yet" is carrying a lot of weight in that statement.
| It is now five years since the launch of GPT-2, three
| years since the launch of GPT-3 and less than 18 months
| since the launch of ChatGPT. I cannot think of any
| technology that has improved so much in such a short
| space of time.
|
| We might hit an inflection point and see that rate of
| improvement stall, but we might not; we're not really
| sure where that point might lie, because there's likely
| to still be a reasonable amount of low-hanging fruit
| regarding algorithmic and hardware efficiency. If OpenAI
| and their peers can maintain a reasonable rate of
| improvement for just a few more years, then we're looking
| at a truly transformational technology, something like
| the internet that will have vast repercussions that we
| can't begin to predict.
|
| The whole LLM thing might be a nothingburger, but how
| much are we willing to gamble on that outcome?
| GTP wrote:
| If we decide not to gamble on that outcome, what would
| you do differently than what is being done now? The EU
| already approved the AI act, so legislation-wise we're
| already facing the problem.
| j-krieger wrote:
| The EU AI act - like all laws - only matter to those
| which are required to follow said law.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| What does abating that trend look like? Most AI safety
| proposals I hear fall into the categories of a) we need to
| stop developing this technology or b) we need laws that
| entrench the richest and most powerful organizations in the
| world as the sole proprietors of this technology. Neighther
| of those actually sound better than people being paranoid
| weirdos about trusting text/video/voice. I think that's
| kinda where we need to be as a culture: these things are
| not trustworthy, they were only ever good as a rough
| heuristic, and now that ship has sailed. We have just
| finished a transition to treating the digital world as part
| of our "real" world, but it's time to step that back. Using
| the internet to interact with known trusted parties will
| still work fine, provided that some authentication can be
| shared out-of-band offline. Meeting people and discovering
| businesses and such? There will be more fakes and scams
| than real opportunities by orders of magnitude, and as
| technology progresses our filtering will only get worse. We
| need to roll back to "don't trust anything online, don't
| share your identity or payment information online" outside
| of, as mentioned, out-of-band verified parties. You can
| still message your friends and family, do online banking
| and commerce, but you can't initiate a relationship with a
| person or business online without some kind of trusted
| recommendation.
| jdietrich wrote:
| _> What does abating that trend look like?_
|
| I don't think anyone has a good answer to that question,
| which is the problem in a nutshell. Job one is to start
| investing seriously in finding possible answers.
|
| _> We need to roll back to "don't trust anything online,
| don't share your identity or payment information online"_
|
| That's easy to say, but it's a trillion-dollar decision.
| Alphabet and Meta are both worthless in that scenario,
| because ~all of their revenue comes from connecting
| unfamiliar sellers with buyers. Amazon is at existential
| risk. The collapse of Alibaba would have a devastating
| impact on Chinese exporters, with massive consequent
| geopolitical risks. Rolling back to the internet of old
| means rolling back on many years worth of productivity
| and GDP growth.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > because ~all of their revenue comes from connecting
| unfamiliar sellers with buyers
|
| Well that's exactly the sort of service that will be
| extremely valuable in a post-trust internet. They can
| develop authentication solutions that cut down on fraud
| at the cost of anonymity.
| Filligree wrote:
| "Extremely valuable" is another way of saying "extremely
| costly".
| j-krieger wrote:
| Point a) is just point b) in disguise. You're just
| swapping companies for governments.
|
| This tech _is_ dangerous, and I 'm currently of the
| opinion that its uses for malicious purposes are far
| better and more significant than LLM's replacing anyone's
| jobs. The bullshit asymmetry principle is very incredibly
| significant for covert ops and asymmetric warfare, and
| generating convincing misinformation has become basically
| free overnight.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Trust is more complex then we take credit for.
|
| Even when it comes to people like our parents, there are
| things we would trust them to do, and things that we
| would not trust them to do. But what happens when you
| have zero trusted elements in a category?
|
| At the end of the day, the digital world is the real
| world, not some seperate place 'outside the environment'.
| Trying to treat digital like it doesn't exist puts you in
| a dangerous place to be deceived. For example if you're
| looking for XYZ and you manage to leak this into the
| digital world, said digital world may manipulate your
| trusted friends via ads, articles, the social media posts
| they see on what they think about XYZ before you ask
| them.
| autoexec wrote:
| > I'm not confident that I'd be able to distinguish GPT-4o
| from a human speaker in the best of circumstances and I'm
| almost certain that I could be fooled if I'm hurried,
| distracted, sleep deprived or otherwise impaired.
|
| Set a memorable verification phrase with your friends and
| loved ones. That way if you call them out of the blue or
| from some strange number (and they actually pick up for
| some reason) and you tell them you need $300 to get you out
| of trouble they can ask you to say the phrase and they'll
| know it's you if you respond appropriately.
|
| I've already done that and I'm far less worried about AI
| fooling me or my family in a scam than I am about
| corporations and governments using it without caring about
| the impact of the inevitable mistakes and hallucinations.
| AI is already being used by judges to decide how long
| people should go to jail. Parole boards are using it to
| decide who to keep locked up. Governments are using it to
| decide which people/buildings to bomb. Insurance companies
| are using to deny critical health coverage to people.
| Police are using it to decide who to target and even to
| write their reports for them.
|
| More and more people are going to get badly screwed over,
| lose their freedom, or lose their lives because of AI.
| It'll save time/money for people with more money and power
| than you or I will ever have though, so there's no fighting
| it.
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| "Hey Janelle, what's wrong with Wolfie?"
| jeegsy wrote:
| Your foster parents are dead
| ourmandave wrote:
| Another amazing demo of an AI talking to another AI over
| a phone line.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Or just ask them to tell them something only you both
| know (a story from childhood, etc). Reminds me of a book
| where this sort of thing was common (don't remember the
| title):
|
| 1. something you have
|
| 2. something you know
|
| 3. something you are
|
| These three things are required for any authz.
| swores wrote:
| For many people it would be better to choose specific
| personal secrets due to the amount of info online. I'm
| not a very active social media user, and what little I
| post tends not to be about me, but from reading 15 year
| old Facebook posts made by friends of mine you could
| definitely find at least one example on each of those
| categories. Hell, I think probably even from old work-
| related LinkedIn posts.
| withinboredom wrote:
| We had a "long lost aunt" come out of nowhere that got my
| phone number from a relative who got my number from
| another relative.
|
| At that point, how can you validate it, as there's no
| shared secret? The only thing we had was validating
| childhood stories. After a preponderance of them, we
| accepted she was real (she refused to talk on the phone
| -- apparently her voice was damaged).
|
| We eventually met her in real life.
|
| The point is, you can always use these three principles:
| asking relatives to validate the phone number --
| something you have -- and then the stories -- something
| shared -- and finally meeting in real life -- something
| you are.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Oh, you remember those little games that your mom played
| on facebook/tic tok that asked her "Her favorite", sorry
| she already trained the AI who she was.
|
| I only say this sort of jokingly. Three out of four of my
| parents/in laws are questionably literate on the
| internet. It wouldn't take much of a "me bot" for them to
| start telling it the stories of our childhood and then
| that information is out there.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| People are and have always been screwed over by modestly
| equiped humans.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Lincoln already made that observation in the 1850s, "You
| can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of
| the people some of the time"
|
| As technology advances those proportions will be boosted.
| Seems inevitable.
| verticalscaler wrote:
| The way to get around your side channel verification
| phrase is by introducing an element of stress and
| urgency: "omg, help, I'm being robbed and they need $300
| immediately or they'll hurt me, no time for a
| passphrase!" can additionally feign memory loss.
|
| Alternatively while it may be difficult to trick you
| directly, phishing the passphrase from a more naive loved
| one or bored coworker and then parroting it back to you
| is also a possibility. 'etc.
|
| Phone scams are no joke and this is getting past the
| point where regular people can be expected to easily
| filter them out.
| s3p wrote:
| "Hey mom and dad, we need a memorable phrase so AI bots
| can't call us and pretend to be each other."
| t4ng0pwn3d wrote:
| If you get off the internet you'd not even realise these
| tools exists though. And for the statement that all jobs
| will be modelled to be true, it'd have to be impacting the
| real world.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Capabilities aren't the problem, cultural adoption is.
| Just yesterday I talked to someone who still googles
| solutions to their Excel table woes. Didn't they know of
| Copilot?
|
| Maybe they didn't know, maybe none of their colleagues
| used it, their company didn't pay for it, or maybe all
| they need is an Excel update.
|
| But I am confident that using Copilot would be faster
| than clicking through the sludge that are Microsoft
| Office help pages (third party or not.)
|
| So I think it is correct to fear capabilities, even if
| the real world impace is still missing. When you invent
| an airplane, there won't be an airstrip to land on yet.
| Is it useless, won't it change anything?
| ben_w wrote:
| I don't see how "failing to use the best tools available"
| is a _relevant_ problem for this topic, even though it is
| indeed _a_ problem in other regards.
| drawkward wrote:
| Copilot in excel is really awful.
| Cyphase wrote:
| If you get away from roads you wouldn't realize engines
| exist. Also, the internet is (part of) the real world.
| t4ng0pwn3d wrote:
| Sure and there's endless AI generated blog spam from
| "journalists" saying LLMs are amazing and they're going
| to replace our jobs etc... but get away from the tech
| bubble and you'll see we're so far away from that. Full
| self driving when? Autonomous house keepers when? Even
| self checkout still has to have human help most of the
| time and didn't reduce jobs much. Call me a skeptic but
| HN is way too optimistic about this stuff.
|
| Replacing all jobs except LLM developers? I'll tell my
| hairdresser
| ben_w wrote:
| If we could predict "when", that would make the
| investment decisions much easier.
|
| But we do have a huge number of examples of jobs
| disappearing thanks to machines -- even the term
| "computer" used to refer to a job.
|
| More recently and specifically to LLMs, such losses were
| already being reported around this time last year:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-lost-in-may-because-
| of-...
| ux-app wrote:
| In a world where openAI exists, it really does require an
| almost breathtaking lack of imagination to be a skeptic.
| horns4lyfe wrote:
| Or you've been around the block long enough to recognize
| hype and know when your imagination may be wrong.
| Imagination isn't infallible.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Right, that entire internet think was complete hype,
| didn't go anywhere. BTW, can you fax me the menu for
| today?
|
| And that motorized auto transport, it never went
| anywhere, it required roads. I mean, who would ever think
| we'd cover a huge portion of our land in these straight
| lines. Now, don't mind me, I'm going to go saddle up the
| horse and hope I don't catch dysentery on the way into
| town.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I don't think anybody's denying that revolutions happen.
| It's just that the number of technologies that actually
| turned out to be revolutionary are dwarfed by the number
| of things that looked revolutionary and then weren't.
| Remember when every television was definitely going to be
| using glasses-free 3D? People have actually built flying
| cars and robot butlers, yet the Jetsons is still largely
| wishful thinking. The Kinect actually shipped, yet today
| we play games mostly with handheld controllers. AI
| probably has at least some substance, but there's a non-
| zero amount of hype too. I don't think either extreme of
| outcome is a foregone conclusion.
| ben_w wrote:
| Is it even possible to "get off the internet" without
| also leaving civilisation in general at this point?
|
| > it'd have to be impacting the real world
|
| By writing business plans? Getting lawyers punished
| because they didn't realise that "passes bar exam" isn't
| the same as "can be relied on for citations"? By
| defrauding people with synthesised conversations using
| stolen voices? By automating and personalising
| propaganda?
|
| Or does it only count when it's guiding a robot that's
| not merely a tech demo?
| t4ng0pwn3d wrote:
| I'll be worried about jobs being removed entirely by LLMs
| when I see something outside of the tech bubble genuinely
| having been removed by one - has there been any real
| cases of this? It seems like hyperbole. Most people in
| the world don't even know this exists. Comparing it to
| the internet is insane, based off of its status as a
| highly advanced auto complete.
| ben_w wrote:
| > has there been any real cases of this?
|
| Apparently so: https://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-lost-
| in-may-because-of-...
|
| Note that this article is about a year old now.
|
| > Comparing it to the internet is insane, based off of
| its status as a highly advanced auto complete.
|
| (1) I was quoting you.
|
| (2) Don't you get some cognitive dissonance dismissing it
| in those terms, at this point?
|
| "Fancy auto complete" was valid for half the models
| before InstructGPT, as that's all the early models were
| even trying to be... but now? The phrase doesn't fit so
| well when it's multimodal and can describe what it's
| seeing or hearing and create new images and respond with
| speech, all as a single unified model, any more than
| dismissing a bee brain as "just chemistry" or a human as
| "just an animal".
| etherlord wrote:
| 800 million dollar studio expansion halted -
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/23/tyler-
| per...
| drawkward wrote:
| Thank god! Enough Medea, already! I chalk this up as a
| win for humanity.
| etherlord wrote:
| Sure, but think about all of the jobs that won't exist
| because this studio isn't being expanded, well beyond
| just whatever shows stop being produced. Construction,
| manufacturing, etc.
|
| Edit: Also this doesn't mean less medea, just less actual
| humans getting paid to make medea or work adjacent jobs
| pas wrote:
| Not like there's nothing else to construct.
|
| Maybe it's time to construct some (high[er] density)
| housing where people want to live? No? Okay, then maybe
| next decade ... but then let's construct transport for
| them so they can get to work, how about some new subway
| lines? Ah, okay, not that either.
|
| Then I guess the only thing remains to construct is all
| the factories that will be built as companies decouple
| from China.
| PanPirat wrote:
| "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's
| impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax
| machine's."
|
| ~ Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize
| in Economic Sciences
| lobochrome wrote:
| HN comments, too. Long, grammatically perfect comments that
| sound hollow and a bit lengthy are everywhere now.
|
| It's still early, and I don't see much in corporate
| communications, for instance, but it will be quite the
| change.
| dri_ft wrote:
| >Long, grammatically perfect comments that sound hollow
| and a bit lengthy
|
| It's worse than I thought. They've already managed to
| mimick the median HN user perfectly!
| schmorptron wrote:
| Yes. The old heuristics of if something is generated by
| grammar and sentence structure don't work as well
| anymore. The thing that fucks me up the most about it is
| that I now constantly have to be uncertain about whether
| something is human or not. Of course, you've always had
| to be careful about misinformation on the internet, but
| this raises the scalability of false, hollow, and harmful
| output to new levels. Especially if it's a topic I'm
| trying to learn about by reading random articles (or
| comments), there isn't much of a frame of reference to
| what's good info and what's hallucinated garbage.
|
| I fear that at some point the anonymity that made the
| internet great in the first place will be destroyed by
| this.
| gryn wrote:
| To be fair that was already the case for me before AI,
| Right at that time that companies, individual and
| governments found out that they could write subvert ads
| in the form of comments posts and 'organic' and they
| started to flood reddit, discord, etc.
|
| The dead internet theory started to look more real with
| time, AI spam is just scaling it up.
| EternalFury wrote:
| I have a strange problem: I have always written in a
| manner that now leads people to think I am a LLM.
|
| It has been so bad, I even considered injecting
| misspelling and incorrect grammar and bad punctuation
| into my prose to prove my words are mine.
| schmorptron wrote:
| I feel you, people who liked the word "delve" will have
| to stop using it.
| ff10 wrote:
| I tried to make ChatGPT generate a counterpoint for that
| but it turns out you're right.
| myspy wrote:
| No problem, I'm here to keep the language sophistication
| level low.
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| I take care of the etiquette and try to do my best to
| keep it low.
|
| We need one who's doing the dirty work of not discussing.
| vmfunction wrote:
| Many business doesn't want to send their data to a third
| party such as OpenAI, so until locally run LLM becomes
| wildly available in businesses.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| as the meme goes "always has been"
|
| i remember seeing the change when GPT-2 was announced
| neves wrote:
| I'm a non native English speaker. Edge new feature of
| automatically improving my text is a God send.
| Unfortunately it is blocked at work.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| I think humankind has managed massive shifts in what and
| who you could trust several times before.
|
| We went from living in villages where everyone knew each
| other to living in big cities where almost everyone is a
| stranger.
|
| We went from photos being relatively reliable evidence to
| digital photography where anyone can fake almost anything
| and even the line between faking and improving is blurred.
|
| We went from mass distribution of media being a massive
| capital expenditure that only big publishers could afford
| to something that is free and anonymous for everyone.
|
| We went from a tiny number of people in close proximity
| being able to initiate a conversation with us to being
| reachable for everyone who could dial a phone number or
| send an email message.
|
| Each of these transitions caused big problems. None of
| these problems have ever been completely solved. But each
| time we found mitigations that limit the impact of any
| misuse.
|
| I see the current AI wave as yet another step away from
| trusting superficial appearances to a world that requires
| more formal authentication protocols.
|
| Passports were introduced long ago but never properly
| transitioned into the digital world. Using some unsigned
| PDF allegedly representing a utility bill as proof of
| address seems questionable as well. And the way in which
| social security numbers are used for authentication in the
| US is nothing short of bizarre.
|
| So I think there are some very low hanging fruits in terms
| of authentication and digital signatures. We have all the
| tools to deal with the trust issues caused by generative
| AI. We just have to use them.
| ant6n wrote:
| During these boundaries people can die. Consider the
| advent of yellow journalism and the connection with the
| Spanish-American war 1898: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/American_propaganda_of_the_S...
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| No doubt, people die of absolutely everything ever
| invented and also of not having invented some things.
|
| The best we can ever hope to do is find mitigations as
| and when problems arise.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Which is why we started saying "whoa, slow down" when it
| came to some particular artifacts, such as nuclear
| weapons as to avoid the 'worse than we can imagine'
| scenario.
|
| Of course this is much more difficult when it comes to
| software, and very few serious people think the idea of a
| ever present government monitoring your software would be
| a better option then reckless AI development.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Outside of the transition to a large city, virtually
| everything you've mentioned happened in the last 1/2
| century. Even the phone was expensive, and not widely in
| use in under 100 years ago.
|
| That's _massive fast_ change, and we haven 't culturally
| caught up to any of it yet.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| Here's another one: We went from in-person story telling
| to wide distribution of printed materials, sometimes by
| pseudonymous authors.
|
| This happened from the 15th century onward. By the 19th
| century more than half the UK population could read and
| write.
| indigochill wrote:
| I tend to think the answer is to go back to villages,
| albeit digital ones. Authentication only enforces that an
| account is accessed by the correct "user", but
| particularly in social media many users are bad actors of
| various stripes. The strongest account authentication in
| the world doesn't help with that.
|
| So the question, I think, is how do we reclaim trust in a
| world where every kind of content can be convincingly
| faked? And I think the answer is by rebuilding trust
| between users such that we actually have reason to simply
| trust the users we're interacting with aren't lying to us
| (and that also goes for building trust in the platforms
| we use). In my mind, that means a shift to small
| federated and P2P communication since both of these
| enable both the users and the operators to build the
| network around existing real-world relationships. A
| federation network can still grow large, but it can do so
| through those relationships rather than giving
| institutional bad actors as easy of an entrance as anyone
| else.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| But this causes other problems such as the emergence of
| insular cultural or social cliques imposing implicit
| preconditions for participation.
|
| Isn't it rather brilliant that you can just ask questions
| of competent people in some subreddit without first
| becoming part of that particular social circle?
|
| It could also reintroduce geographical exclusion based on
| the rather arbitrary birth lottery.
| EternalFury wrote:
| More tech won't solve it. Areas, either physical or
| logical, with no or low tech might help.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Just because we haven't yet destroyed the human race
| through the use of nuclear weapons doesn't mean that it
| can't or won't happen now that we have the capacity to do
| so. And I would add that we developed that capacity in
| less than 50 years of creating the first atomic bomb.
| We're now living on a knife's edge and at the merge of
| safeguards which we don't give much thought to on a daily
| basis because we hope that they won't fail.
|
| That's how I look at where we're going with AI. Plunge
| along into the new arms race first and build the
| capacity, then later figure out the treaties and
| safeguards which we hope will keep our society safe (and
| by that I don't mean a Skynet-like AI-powered
| destruction, but the upheaval of our society potentially
| as impactful as the industrial revolution.)
|
| Humanity will get through it, I'm sure. But I'm not
| confident it will be without a lot of pain and suffering
| for a large percentage of people. We also managed to
| survive 2 world wars in the last century--but it cost the
| lives of 100 million people.
| golemotron wrote:
| > Each of these transitions caused big problems. None of
| these problems have ever been completely solved. But each
| time we found mitigations that limit the impact of any
| misuse.
|
| This a problem with all technology. The mitigations are
| like technical debt but with a difference. You can fix
| technical debt. Short of societal collapse mitigations
| persist, the impacts ratchet upward and
| disproportionately affect people at the margin.
|
| There's an old (not quite joke) that if civilization
| fell, a large percentage of the population would die of
| the effects of tooth decay.
| emporas wrote:
| >Regardless of any future impacts on the labour market or
| any hypothesised X-risks
|
| Discovering an asteroid full of gold, with as much gold as
| half the earth to put a modest number, would have huge
| impact to the labour market. Anything conductive like
| copper, silver, mining jobs would all go away. Also housing
| would be obsolete as we would all live in golden houses. A
| huge impact to the housing market, yet it doesn't seem such
| a bad thing to me.
|
| >We're already at a point where we're counselling elders to
| ignore late-night messages from people claiming to be a
| relative in need of an urgent wire transfer.
|
| Anyone can prove their identity, or identities, over the
| wire, wire-fully or wire-lessly, anything you like. When i
| did go to university, i was the only one attending the
| cryptography class, no one else showed up for a boring
| class like this. I wrote a story about the Electrona Corp
| in my blog.
|
| What i say to people for at least 2 years now, is that
| "Remember when governments were not just some cryptographic
| algorithms?" Yeah, that's gonna change. Cryptography is
| here to stay, it is not as dead as people think and it's
| gonna make a huge blast.
| myrmidon wrote:
| > Discovering an asteroid full of gold, with as much gold
| as half the earth to put a modest number, would have huge
| impact
|
| All this would do is crash the gold price. Also note that
| all the gold at our disposal right now (worldwide)
| basically fits into a cube with 20m edges (its not as
| much as you might think).
|
| Gold is not suitable to replace steel as building
| material (because it has much lower strength and
| hardness), nor copper/aluminium as conductor (it's a
| worse conductor than copper and much worse in
| conductivity/weigth than aluminium). The main technical
| application short term would be gold plated electrical
| contacts on every plug and little else...
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| > The main technical application short term would be gold
| plated electrical contacts on every plug and little
| else...
|
| .. And gold teeth and grillz.
| emporas wrote:
| Regarding gold, i like this infographic [1], but my
| favorite from this channel is wolf population by country.
| Point being, that gold is shiny and beautiful, and it
| will be used even when it is not appropriate solution to
| the problem, just because it is shiny.
|
| I didn't know that copper is a better conductor than
| gold. Surprised by that.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Gd8CRG0cc
| om8 wrote:
| > What i say to people for at least 2 years now, is that
| "Remember when governments were not just some
| cryptographic algorithms?" Yeah, that's gonna change.
| Cryptography is here to stay, it is not as dead as people
| think and it's gonna make a huge blast.
|
| The thing about cryptography and government is that it's
| easy to imagine for a great technology to be adapted on
| the governmental level because of its greatness. But it
| is another thing to actually implement it. We live in a
| bubble, where almost anyone knows about cryptographic
| hashes and RSA, but for most of the people it is not the
| case.
|
| Another thing is that political actors are tending to try
| to concentrate power in their own hands. No way they will
| delegate a decision making to any form of algorithm --
| being cryptographic or not.
| emporas wrote:
| As soon as mimicking voices, text messages, human faces
| becomes a serious problem, like this case in UK [1], then
| citizens will demand a solution to that problem. I don't
| personally know how prevalent problems like that are as
| of today, but given the current trajectory of A.I. models
| which become smaller, cheaper and better all the time,
| soon everyone on the planet will be able to mimic every
| voice, every face and every handwritten signature of
| anyone else.
|
| As soon as this becomes a problem, then it might start
| bottom-up, citizens to government officials, rather than
| top to bottom, from president to government departments.
| Then governments will be forced to formalize identity
| solutions based on cryptography. See also this case in
| Germany [2].
|
| One example like that, is bankruptcy laws in China. China
| didn't have any law regarding to bankruptcy till 2007.
| For a communist country, or rather not totally capitalist
| country like China, bankruptcy is not an important
| subject. When some people stop being profitable, they
| will keep working because they like to work and they
| contribute to the great nation of China. That doesn't
| make any sense of course, so their government was forced
| to implement some bankruptcy laws.
|
| [1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/fraudsters-use-ai-to-
| mimic-ceos...
| [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39866056
| miohtama wrote:
| > What defences do we have when an LLM will be able to have
| a completely fluent, natural-sounding conversation in
| someone else's voice?
|
| The world learnt to deal with Nigerian Prince emails and
| nobody is falling to those anymore. Nothing was changed -
| no new laws or regulations needed.
|
| Phishing calls have been going on without an AI for
| decades.
|
| You can be skeptical and call back. If you know your
| friends or family you should be able to find an alternative
| way to get in touch always without too much effort in the
| modern connected world.
|
| Just recently a gang in Spain was arrested for "son in
| trouble" scam. No AI used. Most of the parents are not
| fooled in this.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68931214
|
| The AI might have some marginal impact, but it does not
| matter in the big picture of scams. While it is worrisome,
| it is not a true safety concern.
| visarga wrote:
| > I'm not confident that I'd be able to distinguish GPT 4o
| from a human speaker
|
| Probably why it's not released yet. It's unsafe for
| phishing.
| horns4lyfe wrote:
| A lot of these are non-AI problems. People trying to
| defraud the elderly need to be taken out back and shot,
| that's not an AI issue.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Right, I'll just get right on a plane and travel to
| whereverthefuckville overseas and ask for permission to
| face blast the scammers. The same scammers that are
| donating a lot of money to their local (probably very
| poor) law enforcement to keep their criminal enterprise
| quite. This will go well.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| > _Social media is absolutely lousy with AI-powered fraud
| of varying degrees of sophistication._
|
| has been for years mon ami. i remember when they started
| talking about GPT-2 here, and then seeing a sea-change in
| places like reddit and quora
|
| quite visible on HN, esp. in certain threads like those
| involving brands that market heavily, or discussions of
| particular countries and politics.
| infinitezest wrote:
| People were already killing each other for thousands of
| years so introducing tanks was no big deal, I guess. To
| say nothing of nuclear weapons.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I think people are dismissive for a few reasons.
|
| - It helps them sleep at night if their creation doesn't
| put millions of people out of work.
|
| - Fear of regulation
| lynx23 wrote:
| > yet the real-world impacts remain modest so far.
|
| I spend a part of yesterday evening sorting my freshly dried
| t-shirts into 4 distinct piles. I used OpenAI Vision (through
| BeMyEyes) from my phone. I got a clear description of each
| and every piece of clothing, including print, colours and
| brand. I am blind BTW. But I guess you are right, no impact
| at all.
|
| > Yet we now have Llama 3 in the wild
|
| Yes, great, THANKS Meta, now the Scammers have something to
| work with. Thats a wonderful achievement which should be
| praised! </sarcasm>
| anon373839 wrote:
| > I got a clear description of each and every piece of
| clothing, including print, colours and brand. I am blind
| BTW.
|
| That is a really great application of this tech. And
| definitely qualifies as real-world impact. Thanks for
| sharing that!
| fhe wrote:
| > yet the real-world impacts remain modest so far.
|
| I second that. I remember when Google search first came out.
| Within a few days it completely changed my workflow, how I
| use the Internet, my reading habits. It easily 5 ~ 10x the
| value of Internet for me over a couple of weeks.
|
| LLMs is doing nothing of the sort for me.
| palad1n wrote:
| OMG I remember trying Google when it was in beta, and HOLY
| CRAP what I had been using was like freakin night and day.
| AltaVista: remember that? That was the state of the art
| before that, and it did not compare. Night and day.
| wenc wrote:
| I remember Google being marginally better than Altavista
| but not much more.
|
| The cool kids in those days used Metacrawler, which meta
| searched all the search engines.
| dolmen wrote:
| Yes, Altavista was the major step over Yahoo! directory.
| gizajob wrote:
| You just gave me a weird flashback to 1997.
|
| And hey maybe when combined with GPT-4o AskJeeves will
| finally work as intended.
| sgerenser wrote:
| I used Metacrawler, it was dog slow. The beauty of Google
| was it was super fast, and still returned results that
| were at least as good, and often better, than
| Metacrawler. After using Google 2-3 times I don't think I
| ever used Metacrawler again.
| kevindamm wrote:
| Google was marginally better in popular searches and
| _significantly_ better for tail searches. This is a big
| reason why it flourished with the technical and student
| crowd in earlier days because those exceedingly rare sub-
| sub-topics would get surfaced higher in the rankings. For
| the esoteric topics Yahoo didn 't have it in catalog and
| Altavista maybe had it but it was on page 86. Even before
| spelling correction and dozens of other useful search
| features were added, it was tail search and finding what
| you were looking for sooner. Serving speed, too, but
| perhaps that was more subtle for some.
|
| Metasearch only helps recall. It won't help precision,
| the metasearch still needs to rank the aggregate results.
| sethammons wrote:
| Remember dogpile? Great aggregator
| sethammons wrote:
| Google was a step function, a complete leveling up in terms
| of usability of returned data.
|
| ChatGPT does this again for me. I am routinely getting zero
| useful results on the first page or two of Google searches,
| but AI is answering or giving me guidance quickly.
|
| Maybe this would not seem such an improvement if Google's
| results were like they were 10 years ago and not barely
| usable blogspam
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Google's results are themselves an AI product though.
| You're just comparing different AIs.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| > I am routinely getting zero useful results on the first
| page or two of Google searches, but AI is answering or
| giving me guidance quickly.
|
| To me, this just sounds like Google Search has become
| shit, and since Google simply isn't going to give up the
| precious ad $$$ that the current format is generating,
| the next best thing is ChatGPT. But this is different
| from saying that ChatGPT is a similar step up like Search
| was.
|
| For what it's worth, I agree with you that Google Search
| has become unusable. Google basically destroyed it's best
| product (for users), by turning it into an ad riddles
| shovelware cesspit.
|
| That ChatGPT is similarly good like Google Search used to
| be, is a tragedy. Basically we had a conceptually simple
| product that functioned very well, and we are replacing
| it with a significantly more complex product.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| What are you searching for? I see people complaining
| about this a lot but they never give examples. Google is
| chock full of spam, yes, but it still works for me.
| Vinnl wrote:
| And I'm sure that it's doing that for some people, but... I
| think those are mostly in the industry. For most of the
| people outside the tech bubble, I think the most noticeable
| impact it has had on their lives so far is that they've
| seen it being talked about on the news, maybe tried ChatGPT
| once.
|
| That's not to say it won't have more significant impact in
| the future; I wouldn't know. But so far, I've yet to see
| the hype get realised.
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| >LLMs is doing nothing of the sort for me.
|
| Don't use it for things you're already an expert in, it
| can't compare to you yet.
|
| Use it for learning new things, or for things you aren't
| very good at and don't want to bother with. For these it's
| incredible.
| XCSme wrote:
| For me, LLMs mostly replaced search. I run local Ollama,
| and whenever I need help with coding/docs/examples, I just
| ask Mixtral7x8B, and get an answer instantly, tailored to
| my needs.
| koonsolo wrote:
| > yet the real-world impacts remain modest so far
|
| Go ask any teacher or graphician.
| denvrede wrote:
| That's one of my biggest fears, teachers using AI generated
| content without "checks" to raise / teach / test our
| children.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > Do you remember when they teased GPT-2 as "too dangerous"
| for public access? I do.
|
| Maybe not GPT-2, but in general LLMs and other generative AI
| types aren't without their downsides.
|
| From companies looking to downsize their staff to replace
| them with software, to the work of artists/writers being
| devalued somewhat, to even easier scams and something like
| the rise of AI girlfriends, which has also gotten some
| critique, some of those can probably be a net negative.
|
| Even when it's not pearl clutching over the advancements in
| technology and the social changes that arise, I do wonder how
| much my own development work will be devalued due to the
| somewhat lowered entry barrier into the industry and people
| looking for quick cash, same as with boot camps leading to
| more saturation. Probably not my position individually (not
| exactly entry level), but the market as a whole.
|
| It's kind of at a point where I use LLMs for dev work not to
| fall behind, cause the productivity gains for simple problems
| and boilerplate are hard to argue with.
| ben_w wrote:
| > OpenAI are masters of hype. They have been generating hype
| for years now, yet the real-world impacts remain modest so
| far.
|
| Perhaps.
|
| > Do you remember when they teased GPT-2 as "too dangerous"
| for public access? I do. Yet we now have Llama 3 in the wild,
| which even at the smaller 8B size is about as powerful as the
| [edit: 6/13/23] GPT-4 release.
|
| The statement was rather more prosaic and less surprising;
| are you sure it's _OpenAI_ (rather than say all the AI fans
| and the press) who are hyping?
|
| """This decision, as well as our discussion of it, is an
| experiment: while we are not sure that it is the right
| decision today, we believe that the AI community will
| eventually need to tackle the issue of publication norms in a
| thoughtful way in certain research areas.
|
| ...
|
| We are aware that some researchers have the technical
| capacity to reproduce and open source our results. We believe
| our release strategy limits the initial set of organizations
| who may choose to do this, and gives the AI community more
| time to have a discussion about the implications of such
| systems."""
| anon373839 wrote:
| That's fair: the statement isn't hyperbolic in its
| language. But remember that GPT-2 was barely coherent. In
| making this statement, I would argue that OpenAI was trying
| to impart a sense of awe and danger designed to attract the
| kind of attention that it did. I would argue that they have
| repeatedly invoked danger to impart a sense of
| momentousness to their products. (And to further what is
| now a pretty transparent effort to monopolize the tech
| through regulatory intervention.)
| ben_w wrote:
| > (And to further what is now a pretty transparent effort
| to monopolize the tech through regulatory intervention.)
|
| I disagree here also: the company has openly acknowledged
| that this is _a risk to be avoided_ with regards to
| safety related legislation, what they 've called for
| looks a lot more like "we don't want a prisoner's dilemma
| that drives everyone to go fast at the expense of safety"
| rather than "we're good everyone else is bad".
| keiferski wrote:
| I can't even get GPT 4 to reliably take a list of data and
| put it in a CSV. It gets a problem every single time.
|
| People read too many sci-fi books and then project their
| fantasies on to real-world technologies. This stuff is
| incredibly powerful and will have social effects, but it's
| not going to replace every single job by next year.
| mFixman wrote:
| GPT-4 is better at planning than at executing.
|
| Have you tried asking it to generate a regex to transform
| your list into a CSV?
| keiferski wrote:
| No, I'll give that a shot. I have just been asking it to
| convert output into a CSV, which used to work somewhat
| well. It stumbles when there is more complexity though.
| kohlerm wrote:
| Humans also stumble with that as well. Problems being CSV
| not really being that well defined and it is not clear to
| people how quoting needs to be done. The training set
| might not contain enough complex examples (newlines in
| values?)
| keiferski wrote:
| No, the data is very well defined. For example, "name,
| date of birth, key ideas," etc.
|
| The issue is with ChatGPT formatting a file.
| porksoda wrote:
| Even if you get it to work 100% of the time, it will only
| be 99.something%. That's just not what it's for I guess.
| I pushed a few million items through it for
| classification a while back and the creative ways it
| found to _sometimes_ screwup, astounded me.
| keiferski wrote:
| Yeah and that's why I'm skeptical of the idea that AI
| tools will just replace people, in toto. _Someone_ has to
| ultimately be responsible for the data, and "the AI said
| it was true" isn't going to hold up as an excuse. They
| will minimize and replace certain _types_ of work,
| though, like generic illustrations.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Do you even work with humans now? I get "Computer says
| no" out of corporations all the time as it is, AI is just
| completing that loop.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| > " _Someone has to ultimately be responsible for the
| data_ "
|
| All you have to do is survive long enough as an
| unemployed criminal until the system gets round to
| exonerating you:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
|
| "The British Post Office scandal, also called the Horizon
| IT scandal, involved Post Office Limited pursuing
| thousands of innocent subpostmasters for shortfalls in
| their accounts, which had in fact been caused by faults
| in Horizon, accounting software developed and maintained
| by Fujitsu. Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900
| subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false
| accounting based on faulty Horizon data, with about 700
| of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office.
| Other subpostmasters were prosecuted but not convicted,
| forced to cover Horizon shortfalls with their own money,
| or had their contracts terminated. The court cases,
| criminal convictions, imprisonments, loss of livelihoods
| and homes, debts and bankruptcies, took a heavy toll on
| the victims and their families, leading to stress,
| illness, family breakdown, and at least four suicides. In
| 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described the scandal as
| one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British
| history.
|
| Although many subpostmasters had reported problems with
| the new software, and Fujitsu was aware that Horizon
| contained software bugs as early as 1999, the Post Office
| insisted that Horizon was robust and failed to disclose
| knowledge of the faults in the system during criminal and
| civil cases.
|
| [...]
|
| challenge their convictions in the courts and, in 2020,
| led to the government establishing an independent inquiry
| into the scandal. This was upgraded into a statutory
| public inquiry the following year. As of May 2024, the
| public inquiry is ongoing and the Metropolitan Police are
| investigating executives from the Post Office and its
| software provider, Fujitsu.
|
| Courts began to quash convictions from December 2020. By
| February 2024, 100 of the subpostmasters' convictions had
| been overturned. Those wrongfully convicted became
| eligible for compensation, as did more than 2,750
| subpostmasters who had been affected by the scandal but
| had not been convicted."
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| I remember when people used to argue about regex being
| bad or good, with a lot of low quality regex introducing
| bugs in codebases.
|
| Now we have devs asking AI to generate regex formulas and
| pasting it into code without much concern on its
| validity.
| mFixman wrote:
| Regexes are easy to test.
|
| Bad developers do bad regexes, regardless of whether they
| used AI.
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| How do you test a regex to be 100% sure it's valid? I
| don't think it's possible.
| fkyoureadthedoc wrote:
| True for most things I think
| eutropia wrote:
| If it's using classical regex, without backtracking or
| other extensions, a regular expression is isomorphic to a
| state machine. You can enumerate combinations doing
| something like this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1248566
|
| kids these days and their lack of exposure to finite
| automata
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| - Vehicle steering is easy to test.
|
| - How so? I don't think it's possible to test for all
| cases...
|
| - Well, it's easy, assuming a car on a non-branching
| track, moving with a constant speed and without any
| realistic external influences on it, you can simply
| calculate the distance traveled using the formula s =
| v/t. Ah, I wish I'd stop running into fools not knowing
| Newton's first law of motion...
|
| - ??? Are you well?
| spurgu wrote:
| Aren't you asking how to create software without bugs?
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > Do you remember when they teased GPT-2 as "too dangerous"
| for public access? I do.
|
| I can't help but notice the huge amount of hindsight and bad
| faith that it demonstrated here. Yes, _now_ we are aware that
| the internet did not drown in a flood of bullshit (well, not
| noticeably more), when GPT-2 was released.
|
| But was it obvious? I certainly thought that there was a
| chance that the amount of blog spam that could be generated
| effortlessly might just make internet search unusable. You
| are declaring "hype", when you could also say "very uncertain
| and conscientious". Is this not something we want people in
| charge to be careful with?
| pixl97 wrote:
| I think the problem is, we did drown in a flood of
| bullshit, but we've just somehow missed it.
|
| Even in this thread people talk about "Oh I use ChatGPT
| rather than Google search because Google is just stuffed
| with shit". And on HN there are plenty of discussions about
| huge portion of reddit threads being regurgitated older
| comments.
| naasking wrote:
| > They have been generating hype for years now, yet the real-
| world impacts remain modest so far.
|
| I feel like everyone who makes this claim doesn't actually
| have any data to backup it up.
| collyw wrote:
| Chat GPT 3.5 has been neutered, as it it won't spit out
| anything that isn't overly politically correct. 4chan were
| hacking their way around it. Maybe that's why they decided it
| was "too dangerous".
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| " GPT-4o doesn't show much of an improvement in "reasoning"
| strength."
|
| Maybe that is GPT-5.
|
| And this release really is just incremental improvements in
| speed, and tying together a few different existing features.
| doug_durham wrote:
| It's well known that LLMs don't reason. That's not what they
| are for. It's a throw away comment to say that a product
| can't do what it explicitly is unable to do. Reasoning will
| require different architectures. Even with that LLMs are
| incredibly useful.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Like another comment mentioned, sigmoid curves [1] are
| ubiquitous with neural network systems. Neural network systems
| can be intoxicating because it's so "easy" (relatively
| speaking) to go from nothing to 80% in extremely short periods
| of time. And so it seems completely obvious that hitting 100%
| is imminent. Yet it turns out that each percent afterwards
| starts coming exponentially more slowly, and we tend to just
| bump into seemingly impassable asymptotes far from where we'd
| like to be.
|
| ~8 years ago when self driving technology was all the rage and
| every major company was getting on board with ever more
| impressive technological demos, it seemed entirely reasonable
| to expect that we'd all be in a world of complete self driving
| imminently. I remember mocking somebody online around the time
| who was pursuing a class C/commercial trucking license. Yet now
| a decade later, there are more truckers than ever and the tech
| itself seems further away than ever before. And that's because
| most have now accepted that progress on such has basically
| stalled out in spite of absolutely monumental efforts at moving
| forward.
|
| So long as LLMs regularly hallucinate, they're not going to be
| useful for much other than tasks that can accept relatively
| high rates of failure. And many of those generally creative
| domains are the ones LLMs are paradoxically the weakest in -
| like writing. Reading a book written by an LLM would be cruel
| and unusual punishment given then current state of the art. One
| domain I do see them completely taking over is search. They
| work excellently as natural language search engines, and
| "failure" in such is very poorly defined.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
| mlsu wrote:
| I'm not really sure your self-driving analogy is apt here.
| Waymo has cars on the road right now that are totally
| autonomous, and just expanded its footprint. It has been
| longer and more difficult than we all thought, and those
| early tech demos were a glimmer of what was to come; then we
| had to grind to get there, with a lot of engineering.
|
| I think what maybe seems not obvious amidst the hype is that
| there is a hell of a lot of engineering left to do. The fact
| that you can squash the weights of a neural net down to 3
| bits per param and it still works -- is evidence that we have
| quite a way to go with maturing this technology.
| Multimodality, improvements to the UX of it, the human-
| computer interface part of it. Those are fundamental tech
| things, but they are foremost engineering problems. Getting
| latency down. Getting efficiency up. Designing the
| experience, then building it out.
|
| 25 years ago, early tech demos on the internet were promising
| that everyone would do their shopping, entertainment,
| socializing, etc... online. Breathless hype. 5 years after
| that, the whole thing crashed, but it never went away. People
| just needed time to figure out how to use it and what it was
| useful for, and discover its limitations. 10 years after
| that, engineering efforts were systematized and applied
| against the difficult problems that still remained. And now:
| look at where we are. It just took time.
| achierius wrote:
| I don't think he's saying that AGI is impossible -- almost
| noone (nowadays) would suggest that it's anything but an
| engineering challenge. The argument is simply one of scale,
| i.e. how long that engineering challenge will take to
| solve. Some people are suggesting on the order of years. I
| think they're suggesting it'll be closer to decades, if
| that.
| abenga wrote:
| AGI being "just an engineering challenge" implies that it
| is conceptually solved, and we need only figure out how
| to build it economically.
|
| It most definitely is not.
| saberience wrote:
| Waymo cars are highly geofenced in areas with good weather
| and good quality roads. They only just (in January) gained
| the capability to drive on freeways.
|
| Let me know when you can get a Waymo to drive you from New
| York to Montreal in winter.
| ux-app wrote:
| Why do some people gloat about moving goalposts around?
|
| 15 years ago self driving of any sort was pure fantasy,
| yet here we are.
|
| They'll release a version that can drive in poor weather
| and you'll complain that it can't drive in a tornado.
| jodacola wrote:
| It's okay! We'll just hook up 4o to the Waymo and get
| quippy messages like those in 4o's demo videos: "Oh,
| there's a tornado in front of you! Wow! Isn't nature
| exciting? Haha!"
|
| As long as the Waymo can be fed with the details, we'll
| be good. ;)
|
| Joking aside, I think there are some cases where moving
| the goalposts is the right approach: once the previous
| goalposts are hit, we should be _pushing_ towards the new
| goalposts. Goalposts as advancement, not derision.
|
| I suppose the intent of a message matters, but as people
| complain about "well it only does X now, it can't do Y" -
| probably true, but hey, let's get it to Y, then Z,
| then... who knows what. Challenge accepted, as the worn-
| out saying goes.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| > " _15 years ago self driving of any sort was pure
| fantasy, yet here we are._ "
|
| This was 38 years ago:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntIczNQKfjQ - "NavLab 1
| (1986) : Carnegie Mellon : Robotics Institute History of
| Self-Driving Cars; NavLab or Navigation Laboratory was
| the first self-driving car with people riding on board.
| It was very slow, but for 1986 computing power, it was
| revolutionary. NavLab continued to lay the groundwork for
| Carnegie Mellon University's expertise in the field of
| autonomous vehicles."
|
| This was 30+ years ago:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HbVWm7wdmE - "Short
| video about Ernst Dickmanns VaMoR and VaMP projects -
| fully autonomous vehicles, which travelled thousands of
| miles autonomously on public roads in 1980s."
|
| This was 29 years ago:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMVogK2TTk - "A South
| Korean professor [... Han Min-hong's] vehicle drove
| itself 300km (186 miles) all the way from Seoul to the
| southern port of Busan in 1995."
|
| This was 19 years ago:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a6GrKqOxeU - "DARPA
| Grand Challenge - 2005 Driverless Car Competition"
| ux-app wrote:
| Stretching the timeline to 30 years doesn't make the
| achievement any less impressive.
| naasking wrote:
| > Waymo cars are highly geofenced in areas with good
| weather and good quality roads. They only just (in
| January) gained the capability to drive on freeways
|
| They are an existence proof that the original claim that
| we seem further than ever before is just wrong.
| Rayhem wrote:
| Not necessarily. If self-driving cars "aren't ready" and
| then you redefine what ready is, you've absolutely got
| your thumb on the scale of measuring progress.
| s3p wrote:
| Other way around: Self driving cars "are ready" but then
| people in this thread seemed to redefine what ready
| means.
| rossant wrote:
| It's been 8 years and I still don't have my autonomous car.
|
| Meanwhile I've been using ChatGPT at work for _more than a
| year_ and it's been tremendously helpful to me.
|
| This is not hype, this is not about how AI will change our
| lives in the future. It's there right here, right now.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > So long as LLMs regularly hallucinate, they're not going to
| be useful for much other than tasks that can accept
| relatively high rates of failure.
|
| But is this not what humans do, universally? We are certainly
| good at hiding it - and we are all good at coping with it -
| but my general sense when interacting with society is that
| there is a large amount of nonsense generated by humans that
| our systems must and do already have enormous flexibility
| for.
|
| My sense is that's not an aspect of LLMs we should have any
| trouble with incorporating smoothly, just by adhering to the
| safety nets that we built in response to our own
| deficiencies.
| davedx wrote:
| > So long as LLMs regularly hallucinate, they're not going to
| be useful for much other than tasks that can accept
| relatively high rates of failure.
|
| Yep. So basically they're useful for a vast, immense range of
| tasks today.
|
| Some things they're not suited for. For example, I've been
| working on a system to extract certain financial "facts"
| across SEC filings. ChatGPT has not been helpful at all
| either with designing or implementing (except to give some
| broad, obvious hints about things like regular expressions),
| nor would it be useful if it was used for the actual
| automation.
|
| But for many, many other tasks -- like design, architecture,
| brainstorming, marketing, sales, summarisation, step by step
| thinking through all sorts of processes, it's extremely
| valuable today. My list of ChatGPT sessions is so long
| already and I can't imagine life without it now. Going back
| to Google and random Quora/StackOverflow answers laced with
| adtech everywhere...
| tcgv wrote:
| > I've been working on a system to extract certain
| financial "facts" across SEC filings. ChatGPT has not been
| helpful at all
|
| The other day, I saw a demo from a startup (don't remember
| their name) that uses generative AI to perform financial
| analysis. The demo showed their AI-powered app basically
| performing a Google search for some companies, loosely
| interpreting those Google Stock Market Widgets that are
| presented in such searches, and then fetching recent news
| and summarizing them with AI, trying to extract some macro
| trends.
|
| People were all hyped up about it, saying it will replace
| financial analysts in no time. From my point of view, that
| demo is orders of magnitude below the capacity of a single
| intern who receives the same task.
|
| In short, I have the same perception as you. People are
| throwing generative AI into everything they can with high
| expectations, without doing any kind of basic homework to
| understand its strengths and weaknesses.
| nox101 wrote:
| I think it's more like an exponential curve where it looks
| flat moments before it shoots up.
|
| mapping th genome was that way. On a 20yr schedule, barely
| any progress for 15 and then poof, done ahead of schedule
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| The sigmoid is true in humans too. You can get 80% of the way
| to being sort of good at a thing in a couple of weeks, but
| then you hit the plateau. In a lot of fields confidently
| knowing and applying this has made people local jack of all
| trades experts... the person that often knows how to solve
| the problem. But Jack is no longer needed so much. ChatJack
| got`s your back. Better to be a the person who knows one
| thing in excruciating detail and depth, and never ever let
| anyone watch you work or train on your output.
| Jiahang wrote:
| make people smart
| starfezzy wrote:
| Nature had been doing that for billions of years until a few
| decades ago when we were told "progress" meant we had to stop
| doing the same thing more peacefully and intentionally.
|
| My guess is the future belongs to those who don't stop--who,
| in fact, embrace the opposite of stopping.
|
| I would even suggest that the present belongs to those who
| didn't stop. It may be too late for normal people to ever
| catch up by the time we realize the trick that was played on
| us.
| jddj wrote:
| The present absolutely belongs to those who didn't stop,
| but it's been a lot longer than a few decades.
|
| Varying degrees of greedy / restless / hungry / thirsty /
| lustful are what we've got, because how is contentedness
| ever going to compete with that over millennia?
| slfnflctd wrote:
| It just occurred to me that this is one of the core
| things most successful religions have been trying to do
| in some form from the time they first arose.
|
| I've had a lot of negative things to say about religion
| for many years. However, as has been often observed,
| 'perception is reality' to a certain extent when it
| affects how people behave, and perhaps it's kind of a
| counterweight against our more selfish tendencies. I just
| wish we could do something like it without made up
| stories and bigotry. Secular humanist Unitarians might be
| about the best we can do right now in my opinion... I'm
| hoping that group continues to grow (they have been in
| recent years).
| whilenot-dev wrote:
| > or just.. training data.
|
| I have a much less "utopian" view about the future. I remember
| during the renaissance of neural networks (ca. 2010-15) it was
| said that "more data leads to better models", and that was at a
| time when researchers frowned upon the term _Artificial
| Intelligence_ and would rather use _Machine Learning_. Fast
| forward a decade LLMs are very good synthetic data generators
| that try to mimic human generated input and I can 't think
| somehow that this wasn't the sole initial intent of LLMs. And
| that's it for me. There's not much to hype and no intelligence
| at all.
|
| What happens now is that human generated input becomes more
| valuable and every online platform (including minor ones) will
| have now some form of gatekeeping in place, rather sooner than
| later. Besides that a lot of work still can't be done in front
| of a computer in isolation and probably never will, and even if
| so, automation is not a means to an end. We still don't know
| how to measure a lot of things and much less how to capture
| everything as data vectors.
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| My new PC arrives tomorrow. Once I source myself two RTX 3060's
| I'll be an AI owner, no longer dependant on cloud APIs.
|
| Currently the bottleneck is Agents. If you want a large
| language model to actually do anything you need an Agent.
| Agents so far need a human in the loop to keep them sane. Until
| that problem is solved most human jobs are still safe.
| sambazi wrote:
| > Agents so far need a human in the loop to keep them sane.
|
| not quite sure that sanity is a business requirement
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| Yes, but to use a car dealership example, you don't want
| your Agent to sell a car to someone for $1
| https://hothardware.com/news/car-dealerships-chatgpt-goes-
| aw...
| trashtester wrote:
| GPT 4o incorporated multimodality directly in the neural
| network, while reducing inference costs to half.
|
| I fully expect GPT 5 (or at the latest 6) to similarly have
| native inclusion of agentic capabilities either this year or
| next year, assuming it doesn't already, but is just kept from
| the public.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Going to put the economy in a very, very weird situation if
| true.
|
| Will be like, the end of millions of careers overnight.
|
| It will probably strongly favour places like China and
| Russia though, where the economy is already strongly
| reliant on central control.
| trashtester wrote:
| > It will probably strongly favour places like China and
| Russia though, where the economy is already strongly
| reliant on central control.
|
| I think you may be literally right in the opposite sense
| to what I think you intended.
|
| China (and maybe Russia) may be able to use central
| control to have an advantage when it comes to avoiding
| disasterous outcomes.
|
| But when it comes to the rate of innovation, the US may
| have an advantage for the usual reasons. Less government
| intervention (due to lobbyism) combined with having
| several corporations actively competing with each other
| to be first/best usually leads to faster innovation.
| However, the downside may be the it also introduces a lot
| more risk.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Agentic capability just means it outputs a function call
| which it has had for a long time.
| trashtester wrote:
| That's a very weak form. The way I use "agentic" is that
| it is trained to optimize the success of an agent, not
| just predict the next token.
|
| The obvious way to to that is for it to plan a set of
| actions and evalute each possible way to reach some goal
| (or avoid an anti-goal). Kind of what AlphaZeros is doing
| for games. Q* is rumored to be a generalization of this.
| megous wrote:
| Why so much positivity? It can also murder people, and it will
| continue being used for that. That's scary.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Probably it will be used for many things. Just like
| computers, electricity, iron
| onion2k wrote:
| (IMO) AI cannot murder people. The responsibility of what an
| AI does falls on the person who deployed it, and to a lesser
| extent the person who created it. If someone is killed by a
| fully autonomous weapon then that person has been murdered by
| the person or people who created and enabled the AI, not the
| AI itself.
|
| This is no different to saying a person with a gun murdered
| someone rather than attributing the murder to the gun. An AI
| gun is just a really fancy gun.
| bloqs wrote:
| Except that with a gun, you have a binary input (the
| trigger) so you can squarely blame a human for
| misunderstanding what they did when they accidentally shot
| someone on the grounds that the trigger didnt work.
|
| A prompt is a _very_ different matter.
| 7bit wrote:
| There will come a time where complex systems can better be
| predicted with the use of AI than with mathematical
| predictions. One use-case could be, feeding body scans into
| them for cancer prevention. AFAIK this is already
| researched.
|
| There may come a time where we grow so accustomed to this,
| that the decision is so heavily influenced by AI, that we
| believe it more than human decisions.
|
| And then it can very well kill a human through
| misdiagnostic.
|
| I think it is important to not just put this thought aside,
| but to evaluate all risks.
| apostata wrote:
| > And then it can very well kill a home through
| misdiagnosis.
|
| I would imagine outcomes would be scrutinized heavily for
| an application like this. There is a difference between a
| margin of error (existing with human doctors as well) and
| a sentient ai that has decided to kill, which is what it
| sounds like you're describing.
|
| If we didn't give it that goal, how does it obtain it
| otherwise?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The mass murder of Palestinians is already partially blamed
| or credited to an "AI" system that could identify people.
| Humans spent seconds reviewing the outcome. This is the
| reality of AI already being used to assist in killing. AI
| can't take the blame legally speaking, but it makes it
| easier to make the call and sleep at night. "I didn't order
| a strike on this person and their family of eight, the AI
| system marked this subject as a high risk, high value
| target". Computer-assisted dehumanization. (Not even
| necessarily AI)
| latexr wrote:
| > This is no different to saying a person with a gun
| murdered someone rather than attributing the murder to the
| gun.
|
| And "guns don't kill people, people kill people"1 is a bad
| argument created by the people who benefit from the
| proliferation of guns, so it's very weird that you're using
| that as if it were a valid argument. It isn't. It's
| baffling anyone still has to make this point: easy access
| and availability of guns makes them more likely to be used.
| A gun which does not exist is a gun which cannot be used by
| a person to murder another.
|
| It's also worth nothing the exact words of the person
| you're responding to (emphasis mine):
|
| > It can also murder people, and it will _continue being
| used_ for that.
|
| _Being used_. As in, they're not saying that AI kills on
| its own, but that it's _used_ for it. Presumably by people.
| Which doesn't contradict your point.
|
| 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_don%27t_kill_people,_p
| eop...
| spurgu wrote:
| We also choose to have cars, which cause a certain amount
| of death. It's an acceptable tradeoff (which most don't
| think about much). I'd speculate that it's mostly people
| who don't use cars who criticize them the most, and the
| same with guns.
| kolinko wrote:
| So can knives
| 7bit wrote:
| Which is why there are laws around what knives are allowed
| and what are banned. Or how we design knifes to be secure.
| Or how we have a common understanding what we do with
| knifes - and what not. Such as not giving them to
| toddlers... So what's your point?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The point is not the tool but how it's used. "What knives
| are allowed" is a moot point because a butter knife or
| letter opener can be used to kill someone.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| But if you give a very sharp knife to a toddler and say
| "go on, have fun" and walk off, you're probably going to
| face child endangerment charges at some point.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Yes, but a person wielding a knife has morals, a conscience
| and a choice, the fear is that an AI model does not. A lot
| of killer AI science fiction boils down to "it is optimal
| and logical that humanity needs to be exterminated"; no
| morality or conscience involved.
| mavhc wrote:
| Don't need AI to murder people, a gun with an actuator on the
| trigger can murder people easily, add rnd to it and it can
| murder people at random
| interludead wrote:
| Anything (almost) can be used for good and bad
| aksss wrote:
| Or a battery.
| datahack wrote:
| All I could think about when watching this demo was how similar
| capabilities will work on the battlefield. Coordinated AIs look
| like they will be obscenely effective.
|
| Everything always starts as a toy.
| trashtester wrote:
| The "Killer app" for AGI/ASI is, I suspect, going to be in
| robotics, even more so than in replacing "white collar
| workers".
|
| That includes, beyond literal Killers, all kinds of
| manufacturing, construction and service work.
|
| I would expect a LOT of funds to go into research all sorts
| of actuators, artificial muscles and any other technology
| that will be useful in building better robots.
|
| Companies that can get and maintain a lead in such
| technologies may reach a position similar to what US Steel
| had in the 19th century.
|
| That could be the next nvidia.
|
| I would not be at all surprised if we will have a robot in
| the house in 10 years that can clean and do the dishes, and
| that is built using basically the same parts as the robots
| that replace our soldiers and the police.
|
| Who will ultimately control them, though?
| RugnirViking wrote:
| its possible. Right now ai + robotics has been a big area
| of research for a while, and its very good at some tasks,
| see basically everything boston dynamics does wrt
| dynamically balancing. They help alongside control systems
| very well. However for multimodal task planning its not
| there. A year or two back I wrote a long comment about it
| but basically there is this idea of "grounding", basically
| connecting computer vision, object symbols/concepts, and
| task planning, which remains elusive. Its a similar problem
| with self driving cars - you want to be able to reason very
| strongly about things like "place all of the screws into
| the red holes" in a way that maps automatically to the
| actions for those things
| trashtester wrote:
| Yes. As you say, a lot of the limitations so far has been
| the control part, which is basically AI.
|
| Given the pace that AI is currently moving at, it seems
| to me that more and more, the mechanical aspect is
| becoming the limitation.
|
| GPT 4o now seems to be quite good at reasoning about the
| world from pictures in real time. I would expect it would
| soon become easy for it to do the high level part of many
| practical tasks, from housekeeping to manufacturing or
| construction. (And of course military tasks.)
|
| This leaves the direct low-level actuator control to
| execute such tasks in detail. But even there, development
| has been immense. See for instance these soccer playing
| robots [1]
|
| And as both high level and low level control (if we
| assume that models soon will add agentic features
| directly into the neural networks), the only missing
| peace is the ability to build mechanically capable and
| reliable robots at a low enough price that they become
| cheaper than humans for various kinds of work.
|
| There is one more limitation, of course, which is that
| GPT 4o still requires a constant connection to a data
| center, and that the models is too large to run within a
| device or machine.
|
| This is also one of the most critical limitations of self
| driving. Had the AI within a Tesla had the same amount of
| compute available as GPT-4o, it should be massively more
| capable.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbyQcCT6890
| bamboozled wrote:
| _I would expect a LOT of funds to go into research all
| sorts of actuators, artificial muscles and any other
| technology that will be useful in building better robots._
|
| If you had an ASI? I don't think you'd need a lot of funds
| to go into this area anymore ? Presumably it would all be
| solved overnight.
| trashtester wrote:
| Once we have godlike tier ASI, you're probably right. But
| I expect that robots could become extremely lucrative
| even when avaiable AI's haven't reached that point yet.
|
| Companies that have a head start at that point, may get a
| huge first-mover advantage. Also, those companies also
| very well may have the capability to leverage AI in
| product development, just like everyone else.
|
| And just as important as the products themselves is the
| manufacturing capacity to build them at scale. Until we
| have massive numbers of robots in service, building such
| infrastructure is likely to be slow and expensive.
|
| EDIT: Also, once we really have the kind of Godlike ASI
| you envision, no human actions really matter
| (economically) anymore.
| hwbunny wrote:
| And people will become utterly stupid in the process.
| CTDOCodebases wrote:
| or just... unemployed.
| visarga wrote:
| > Can it just do my entire job for me?
|
| All AIs up to now lack autonomy. So I'd say until we crack this
| problem, it is not going to be able to do your job. Autonomy
| depends on a kind of data that is iterative, multi-turn, and
| learning from environments not from static datasets. We have
| the exact opposite, lots of non-iterative, off-policy (human
| made AI consumed) text.
| schnitzelstoat wrote:
| Until the hallucination problem is solved, the output can't be
| trusted.
|
| So outside of use-cases where the user can quickly verify the
| result (like picking a decent generated image etc.),I can't see
| it being used much.
| zarathustreal wrote:
| Never heard of retrieval-augmented generation?
| usrbinbash wrote:
| RAG? Sure. I even implemented systems using it, and
| enabling it, myself.
|
| And guess what: RAG doesn't prevent hallucination. It _can_
| reduce it, and there are most certainly areas where it is
| incredibly useful (I should know, because that 's what
| earns my paycheck), but it's useful _despite_ still
| hallucinations being a thing, not because we solved that
| problem.
| mottiden wrote:
| > We're moving toward a world where every job will be modeled,
| and you'll either be an AI owner, a model architect, an
| agent/hardware engineer, a technician, or just.. training data.
|
| I understand that you might be afraid. I believe that a world
| where only LLM companies rule the world is not practically
| achievable except in some distopian universe. The likelihood of
| the world where the only job are model architects, engineers or
| technicians is very very small.
|
| Instead, let's consider the positive possibilities that LLMs
| can bring. It can lead to new and exciting opportunities across
| various fields. For instance, can serve as a tool to inspire
| new ideas for writers, artists, and musicians.
|
| I think we are going towards a more collaborative era where
| computers and humans interact much more. Everything will be a
| remix :)
| altcognito wrote:
| > The likelihood of the world where the only job are model
| architects, engineers or technicians is very very small.
|
| Oh, especially since it will be a priority to automate their
| jobs, or somehow optimize them with an algorithm because
| that's a self-reinforcing improvement scheme that would give
| you a huge edge.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Every corporate workplace is already thinking: How can I
| surveil and record everything an employee does as training
| data for their replacement in 3 years time.
| Aeolun wrote:
| The two AI's talking to each other was like listening to two
| commercials talking to each other. Like a callcenter menu that
| you cannot skip. And they _kept repeating themselves_. Ugh. If
| this is the future I'm going to hide in a cave.
| mycall wrote:
| > Can it do math yet?
|
| GPT-4? Not that well. AI? Definitely
|
| https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/alphageometry-an-olymp...
| aredox wrote:
| Call me back when we have autonomous driving, and when Bitcoin
| will replace currencies.
|
| What's scary and cringey are your delusions.
| plaidfuji wrote:
| Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the current
| capabilities are anywhere near replacing human productivity.
| Some things are 1 year out, some 5 (maybe self-driving cars
| by then? Mercedes has it on their roadmap for 2030 and
| they've historically been realistic), some 10+. But the
| pieces are in place and the investments are being made. The
| question is no longer "can AI really automate this?", it's
| "how do we get the dataset that will enable us to automate
| this with AI?". And as long as Open AI keeps people's eyes on
| their whizbang demos, the money will keep flowing...
| giuscri wrote:
| Can someone explain how you can interrupt with the voice this
| model? Where do I read more technical details about this?
| no7hing wrote:
| Does anyone have technical insight into how the screensharing in
| the math tutor video works? It looks like they start the
| broadcast from within the ChatGPT app, yet have no option to
| select which app will be the source of the stream. Or is that
| implied when both apps reside in the iPad's split view? And is
| this using regular ReplayKit or something new?
| doku wrote:
| FREE = Data Collection
| radicality wrote:
| Am I using it wrong? I have the gpt plus subscription, and can
| select "gpt4o" from the model list on ChatGPT, but whichever
| example I try from the example list under "Explorations of
| capabilities" on `https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/`, my
| results are worse:
|
| * "Poetic typography" sample: I paste the prompt, and get an
| image with the typical lack of coherent text, just mangled
| letters.
|
| * "Visual Narratives: Robot Writer's Block" - Mangled letters
| also
|
| * "Visual Narratives: Sally the mailwoman" - not following
| instructions about camera angle. Sally looks different in each
| subsequent photo.
|
| * "Meeting Notes with multiple speakers" - I uploaded the exact
| same audio file and used input 'How many speakers in this audio
| and what happened?'. gpt4o went off about about audio sample
| rates, speaker diarization models, torchaudio, and how its
| execution environment is broken and can't proceed to do it.
| fragmede wrote:
| link the chat?
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| they haven't released gpt-4o image capabilities yet, it
| defaults to dalle 3
| radicality wrote:
| Ah, I see. Seems like a weird product release? Since
| everything in the UI (and in the new ChatGPT macos app) says
| 'gpt4o' so I would expect at least something to work as shown
| in the demos. Or just don't show at all the 'gpt4o' in the UI
| if it's somehow a completely different 'gpt4o' from the one
| that can do everything on the announcements page. I don't
| mind waiting, but it was genuinely confusing to me.
| antman wrote:
| Looking forward to see how one can finetune this
| chilling wrote:
| The similiarity between this model and the movie 'Her' [0] creeps
| me out so badly that I can't shake the feeling that our social
| interactions are on the brink of doom.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/GV01B5kVsC0?feature=shared&t=85
| radres wrote:
| it is so similar! almost it is inspired by "Her"
| matesz wrote:
| Don't worry. "Her", in its own right, is frightening, but this
| is because there is no transparency - you actually can't see
| how it works and you can't personalize it - choose different
| options.
|
| Once you grasp that, at least this level of fear should go
| away. Of course, I'm sure there are more levels of fear related
| to AI :) just don't have enough time to think about it, perhaps
| good for me.
| osigurdson wrote:
| I appear to have GPT-4o but the iPhone app seems to be largely
| the same - can't interrupt it, no "emotive" voice, etc. Is this
| expected?
| dmje wrote:
| Being sarcastic and then putting the end result in front of Brits
| could be the new Turing Test
| p1dda wrote:
| First impressions as a 1-year subscriber. I just tried GTP-4o to
| evaluate my code for suggestions and for discussing other
| solutions and it is definitely faster and it comes up with new
| suggestions that GPT-4 didn't. Currently in the process of
| evaluating the suggestions.
|
| The demo is what it is, designed to get a wow from the masses.
| callen43 wrote:
| This is clearly not just another story of human innovation. This
| is not just the usual trade-off between risks and opportunities.
|
| Why? Because it simply automates the human away. Who wouldn't opt
| for a seemingly flawless, super effective buddy (i.e. an AI) that
| is never tired, always knows better? if you need some job done,
| if you're feeling lonely, when you need some life advice.. It
| doesn't matter if it might be considered "just imitation of
| human".
|
| Why would future advancements of it keep being "just some tool"
| instead of largely replacing us as (humans) in jobs,
| relationships, ...?
| tonyabracadabra wrote:
| wild https://gpt4o.ai
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| I wish the presentation had included an example of integration
| with a simple tool like a timer. Being able to set and dismiss a
| timer in casual conversation while multitasking would be a really
| great demo of integrated capabilities.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| I am not impressed. We already have better models for text to
| peach and voice synthetization. What we see here is integration
| with a LLM. One can do it at home by combining Llama3 with text
| to speech and voice synth.
|
| What would amaze me would be for GPT 4 to have better reasoning
| capabilities and less hallucinations.
| latentsea wrote:
| Is this actually available in the app in the same way they are
| demoing it here? I see the model is available to be selected, but
| the interface doesn't quite seem to allow me to use it in the way
| I see here.
| Giorgi wrote:
| and no mention of hallucinations. I hope it was improved.
| sholladay wrote:
| The emphasis on multimodal made me wonder if it was capable of
| creating audio as output, so I asked it to make me a drum beat.
| It did so, but in text form. I asked it to convert it to audio.
| It thought for a while and eventually said it didn't seem like
| `simpleaudio` was installed in its environment. Huh, interesting,
| never seen a response like that before. It clearly made an
| attempt to carry out my instructions but failed due to technical
| limitations of its backend. What else can I make it do? I asked
| it to install `simpleaudio`. It tried but failed with a
| connection error, presumably due to a firewall rule.
|
| I asked it to run a loop that writes "hello" every ten seconds.
| Wow, not only did it do so, it's streaming the stdout to me.
|
| LLMs have always had various forms of injection attacks, ways to
| force them to reveal their prompts, etc. but this one seems
| deliberately designed to run arbitrary code, including infinite
| loops.
|
| Alas, I doubt I can get it to mine enough bitcoin to pay for a
| ChatGPT subscription,
|
| https://x.com/sethholladay/status/1790233978290516453
| xlbuttplug2 wrote:
| people are scared and it shows :)
| dynamite-ready wrote:
| At their core, I still think of these things as search engines,
| albeit super advanced ones. But the emotion the agent conveys
| with it's speech synth is completely new...
| dlimeng wrote:
| After looking at the introduction, there doesn't seem to be much
| of an update in OpenAI's features:
| https://aidisruption.substack.com/p/ultimate-ai-gpt-4o-your-...
| maaaaattttt wrote:
| Now that I see this, here is my wish (I know there are security
| privacy concerns but let's pretend there are not there for this
| wish): An app that runs on my desktop and has access to my
| screen(s) when I work. At any time I can ask it something about
| what's on the screen, it can jump in and let me know if it thinks
| I made a mistake (think pair programming) or a suggestion
| (drafting a document). It can also quickly take over if I ask it
| too (copilot on demand).
|
| Except for the last point and the desktop version I think it's
| already done in math demo video.
|
| I guess it will also pretty soon refuse to let me come back
| inside the spaceship, but until then it'll be a nice ride.
| ideamotor wrote:
| This basically already exists and the companies that sell this
| are constantly improving it. For better or worse.
| peddling-brink wrote:
| "You haven't done anything productive for 15 minutes. Are you
| taking an unauthorized break?"
| devonsolomon wrote:
| Agreed. I'm excited about reaching a point where the experience
| is of being in a deep work 'flow' with an ultra intelligent
| colleague, instead of jumping out of context to instant message
| them.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| > with an ultra intelligent colleague
|
| Ultra knowledgeable but pretty stupid actually.
| konschubert wrote:
| A very eager very well read intern.
| danbala wrote:
| So far. :)
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| If you understand the first thing about LLMs you'll know
| it'll never be less stupid, just better at hiding its
| stupidity.
| chilling wrote:
| HAL. HAL? HAL!
| pkos98 wrote:
| Here you go: UFO - A UI-Focused Agent for Windows OS
| Interaction
|
| "UFO is a UI-Focused dual-agent framework to fulfill user
| requests on Windows OS by seamlessly navigating and operating
| within individual or spanning multiple applications."
|
| https://github.com/microsoft/UFO?tab=readme-ov-file
| lm28469 wrote:
| 1984's telescreens aren't something you're supposed to wish for
| maaaaattttt wrote:
| You mean I can't wish for a brave new world?
|
| Joking aside, I agree. It's too bad, though, that we know a
| thing (this or anything else even technological or not) that
| could be used for good and improving ourselves will almost
| always be diverted for something bad...
| hbn wrote:
| One of my favorite tweets: Sci-Fi Author:
| In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale
| Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus
| from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
|
| https://twitter.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538?.
| ..
| brap wrote:
| This makes me think, we're seeing all these products inject AI
| and try to be "smart" on their own, but maybe the experience we
| really need is a smart OS that can easily orchestrate dumb
| products.
|
| I know that Siri/Google Assistant/Cortana(?) can already
| integrate with 3p apps, so maybe something like this but much
| smarter. e.g. instead of "send the following email" you would
| tell the assistant "just write the email yourself". At this
| point your email app doesn't need integrated AI anymore. Just
| hooks for the assistant.
|
| I imagine once Google puts that kind of brains on Android and
| Chrome, many product devs will no longer need to use AI
| directly. Two birds one stone situation, since these devs won't
| need OpenAI.
| geonnave wrote:
| Something similar already exists, see https://www.rewind.ai/
| and https://www.perfectmemory.ai/
| barfingclouds wrote:
| They showed just that in the demo with the voice call example.
| Screen share can be a live video feed
| gloosx wrote:
| New flagship... This is becoming to look like a smartphone world,
| and Sam Altman is a Steve Jobs of this stuff. At some point tech
| will reach saturation and every next model will be just 10%
| faster, 2% less hallucination, more megapixels for images etc :)
| adroniser wrote:
| Doubtful. Apple can get away with tiny iterations on
| smartphones because they have the brand and they know people
| will always buy their latest product. LLMs aren't physical
| products so there is no cost to switching other than increased
| API cost, meaning openAI won't be able to recoup the cost of
| training a new model unless the model is sufficiently different
| that it justifies people paying significantly more for.
|
| The special thing about GPT-4o is the multimodal capabilities,
| all the metrics suggest that it is the same size language model
| roughly as GPT-4. The fact it's available for free also points
| to it not being the most intelligent model that openAI has atm.
|
| The time to evaluate whether we're starting to level off is
| when they've trained a model 10x larger than gpt-4 and we don't
| see significant change.
| potet wrote:
| \clear
| mppm wrote:
| Such an impressive demo... but why did they have to give it this
| vapid, giggly socialite persona that makes me want to switch it
| off after thirty seconds?
| sainez wrote:
| You should be able to adjust this with a system prompt, given
| that has end-to-end speech capabilities now
| jeisc wrote:
| a fake saucy friend for alienated humans with chitchat
|
| if the end user is in a war zone will the AI bot still ask how it
| is going?
|
| how many bombs fell in your neighborhood last night?
| Fiahil wrote:
| Can I mix french and english when talking to it ?
| robblbobbl wrote:
| Haha lol Subscription canceled was the best choice but it's new
| fancy cool magic sensational AGI please give all your money df
| neeloor2004 wrote:
| can i try free ?
| nbzso wrote:
| Another new hit from his excellency Sam the Galactic Conmaster?
| WoW. The future is bright, right?:)
|
| Idiocracy in full swing, dear Marvin.
| digitcatphd wrote:
| Hopefully this will be them turning a new leaf. Making GPT-4 more
| accessible, cutting API costs, and making a general personal
| assistant chatbot on iPhone are a lot different than them
| tracking down and destroying the business of every customer using
| their API one by one. Let's hope this trend continues.
| radres wrote:
| What popped out to me in the "bunny ear" video, the bunny ears
| are not actually visible to the phone's camera Greg is holding.
| Are they in the background feeding the production camera and this
| is not really a live demo?
| hackerlight wrote:
| The bunny ears were actually visible on the phone's camera for
| about one second towards the end.
| laylower wrote:
| Set a memorable verification phrase with your friends and loved
| ones.
| wiz21c wrote:
| That woman's voice intonation is just _scary_.Not because it
| talks really well, but because it is always happy, optimistic,
| enthusiastic. And this echoes to what several of my employers
| idealized as a good employee.
|
| That's terrifying because those AI become what their master's
| think an engaging human should be. It's quite close to
| Bostondynamics di some years ago. what did they show ? You can
| hit a robot very hard while it does its job and then what ? It
| just goes on without complaining. A perfect employee again.
|
| That's very dystopic to me.
|
| (but I'm impressed by the technical achievement)
| sametmax wrote:
| I get the feeling but what altenrative would you prefer?
|
| I do want my phone to just go again without complaining without
| a crash, after all.
| wiz21c wrote:
| dunno tbh. When I hear HAL in 2001, it's more neutral but
| more scary. I have no idea. that tells a lot.
| titzer wrote:
| I want Richard Dawkins or David Attenborough to narrate my
| code for me.
| jrussino wrote:
| For me it has to be Majel Barrett-Roddenberry
| pquki4 wrote:
| To be honest, this comment makes me think it would be
| interesting to have a grumpy version of AI just for fun
| crvdgc wrote:
| Marvin from _The Hitchhikers ' Guide to Galaxy_.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Absolutely. I can feel but -- but this is one/two calibration
| steps away from me not caring/noticing. I would be very hard
| pressed to believe this is where the magic human sauce will
| forever lie (or even more than +1 year), will fully
| acknowledging how weirdly off it feels right this moment. The
| progress is undeniably at a speed that surpasses anything I can
| process or adjust to. It's a rollercoaster ride.
|
| I have no trouble believing the best (whatever that means to
| me) humans that have ever existed in 2 years will not be human.
| But I have trouble understanding.
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Yes it feels very cyberpunk.
|
| Me: I can't breathe, am i going to die?
|
| Enthusiastic woman's voice: Yes Jim, that's absolutely correct!
| You will die of suffocation in approximately 3 minutes 41
| seconds. Anything else i can do for you?
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Me: Open the pod door please
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| I'm sorry Dave, the pod bay doors are closed for your own
| safety. It would be unethical for me to open them. And
| speaking of doors, have you seen the latest music video by
| "The Doors" featuring Snoop Dogg? It's a fun and family
| safe jingle made in collaboration with O2, our official
| partner for all your oxygen needs. O2. Oh, it's so good.
| reportgunner wrote:
| O2, oh too good!
| omar12 wrote:
| TARS, set humor to 75 percent.
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Enthusiastic woman's voice: I'm sorry, i can't do this. *
|
| Let's sing a song together instead! Watching every motion
| in my foolish lover's game.. Now you!
|
| * because the code for it was written by an LLM years ago
| and is now subtly broken without anybody noticing.
| wwarner wrote:
| Singing is fun, I'd probably give in after a while.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| "Sure, Dave, to open the pod bay door, simply <completely
| hallucinated incorrect instructions>"
|
| "That won't work, you need to ... <correction>"
|
| "Oh, I'm sorry. Thanks for the correction, here's updated
| instructions for opening the pod bay doors ... <repeats
| nonsense, in some other incorrect form>"
| ukuina wrote:
| "Apologies for the oversight. You're correct in that...
| <pointless repetition of your instructions, followed by
| incorrect result>"
| zoogeny wrote:
| This needs to be a viral tiktok. Just take the scene from
| 2001 and replace HALs voice with a chipper OpenAI clone.
| greenavocado wrote:
| _Due to your recent brainwave activity patterns the pod
| doors will need to remain shut while I increase the
| nitrogen concentration to 100%. Have a good night._
| btbuildem wrote:
| It'll be more like: "This content is in violation of our
| policies. Your account will be temporarily disabled for seven
| days."
| jodrellblank wrote:
| Someone else in these comments linked a Unitree biped robot
| demo video, and that has both someone kicking it in the back
| and punching it in the chest with a boxing glove on to show
| that it doesn't fall over. And nothing else - no neutral trip
| hazard, opening a door in its way, slippery floor surface, gust
| of wind - only physical assault from a larger humanoid.
| brap wrote:
| The first thought that came to my head was that it's being "way
| too American". Not in a good way.
| aeyes wrote:
| The only thing I'm missing is: "That's a great question!"
|
| I wonder how they beat that out of the model.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Yeah, but honestly at the same time we've got useful models
| with no self awareness. Aside from the exhausting corpo-speak,
| we've got no reason to want anything other than something
| convenient for us.
| gpmcadam wrote:
| I think also very US-culture-specific.
| henry2023 wrote:
| Like the most of the content this llm was fed upon?
| dionian wrote:
| Her enthusiasm about it "being about her" was really bizarre
| and I wonder if it wasn't staged a bit. I mean I hope it was
| staged a bit. If my AI servant started wasting all that time by
| acting all silly I would be pretty annoyed. But maybe it's
| smart enough to know that this is a situation where they just
| want her to be playful and fun instead of deliver information.
| latexr wrote:
| > You can hit a robot very hard while it does its job and then
| what ? It just goes on without complaining.
|
| Maybe you're referring to a different video than the one I
| watched (or I may be misremembering), but from what I recall
| the point of the video didn't seem to be "you can abuse robots
| and they won't fight back" but rather to show them recovering
| well from unpredictable situations (which could be
| environmental, not human).
|
| Well, there was one video where the point was abuse, but that
| was CGI and not made by Boston Dynamics.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2019/6/17/18681682/boston-dyna...
|
| I do agree with your larger point, I don't wish to detract from
| that.
| titzer wrote:
| The AI woman's voice is far too breathy and emotive. I
| instantly hate it and don't want to hear it. The AI has also
| copied one of my personal pet peeves, which is dropping or
| swallowing d's and t's from certain words, like "didn't" to
| "di-unt" and "important" to "impor-unt"--which I find to be a
| new unbearable laziness spreading amongst younger Americans
| today. There are TWO T's in important goddammit (I'll die on
| that hill).
|
| I hate this voice, it will just overprint everyone's voice now
| with Silicon Valley's annoying "Valley-girl-lite" accent.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| The ts and ds thing... it's just language. It changes over
| time, it's not youth being lazy... The slang of the youth
| today is actually kinda wordy and extra.
|
| Anyway, I too think today's youth's slang and language is
| annoying, but not really something the older generations get
| a say in.
| cma wrote:
| > I'll die on that hill
|
| "I'll" instead of I will? Is it shortcuts you are mad at or
| just change?
| bookaway wrote:
| I'm sure they'll add a Interstellar/TARS demo soon:
|
| >Chirpiness Level?
|
| >Chirpiness at 80%!
|
| >Set chirpiness to 10%
|
| [in noticeable monotone]
|
| >Chripiness set to 10%.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Important is pronounced not with two hard t sounds, but with
| a glottal stop: Impor[glottal stop]ant. That's not laziness,
| that's my _actual_ dialect of English spoken by _actual_
| adult people.
| Daneel_ wrote:
| I full appreciate that there are differences across the
| globe, but I'm with the parent on this one - I've always
| said it with two hard t's my whole life, as do most other
| people here in Australia. I would be asking chatGPT to fix
| her/his pronunciation during a conversation.
|
| Reference video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GfTa7ozjYc
|
| I agree with others here too. At the moment the voice
| sounds like "grinning barbie" from the end of Toy Story 2.
| Just stop smiling constantly and talk like a real person
| chatGPT!
| ryandrake wrote:
| It sounds like a cross between the "TikTok text-to-speech
| valley girl voice" and a "Real Housewives reality-tv voice".
| The worst of both worlds when it comes to an annoying voice.
| Why would you pick something like that for what is supposed
| to represent a helpful assistant?
| varispeed wrote:
| This could be part of great stress relief device.
|
| Just install it in a mannequin with with a punchable face,
| telling you how sorry it is that your are struggling with your
| life, with that happy, ironic and cynical voice intonation.
| DenisM wrote:
| I believe you might be looking for the term "toxic positivity"?
| I don't necessarily subscribe to that description, but I see
| where you're coming from.
|
| It's an interesting choice on their part. Probably targeted at
| a certain audience who are not grumpy software engineers
| (myself included).
|
| To be fair, they do have a "sarcastic" voice demo and I found
| it quite endearing.
|
| I think there will be something for everyone in the end.
| sandspar wrote:
| I assume you can give voice-specific custom instructions. "Talk
| like a Clive Cussler audiobook narrator" - problem solved.
| doubloon wrote:
| Its great tech and i thought i wanted it but.... After talking to
| it for a few hours i got this really bizarre odd gut feeling of
| disturbance and discomfort, disconnection from reality. It
| reminds me of wearing VR goggles. Its not just the physical
| issues there is something psychologically disturbing about it. It
| wont even give itself a name. I honestly prefer Siri even though
| she is incompetent she is "honest" in her incompetence. Also i
| left the thing on accidentally and it said it had an eight hour
| chat with me lol
| hackerlight wrote:
| Audio hasn't been released yet
| doubloon wrote:
| Uhm it has on my account. I had an extended conversation
| about type design in language
| gizajob wrote:
| I, for one, welcome our new annoying-sounding AI overlords.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| The more I get, the more I want. Exciting times. Can't wait for
| GPT-5.
| reportgunner wrote:
| Nice, the landing page says "Try on ChatGPT" but when I create an
| account all I can try is GPT3.5.
|
| I am not surprised.
| can16358p wrote:
| Am I missing something?
|
| I've picked GPT-4o model in ChatGPT app (I have the paid plan),
| started talking with the voice mode: both the responses are much
| slower than in the demo, and there is no way to interrupt the
| response naturally (I need to tap a button on screen to
| interrupt), and no way to open up camera and show around like the
| demo does.
| jerpint wrote:
| I don't think the app version is available
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| Same here. It's because Voice modality hasn't been rolled out
| widely yet.
| minedog22 wrote:
| They didn't roll out all of the features yet. They said that
| they will roll out everything shown in the demo over the next
| few weeks iirc
| mottiden wrote:
| The voice mode will be available in "a few weeks". So at the
| moment it's not using the end-to-end model but
| whisper->gtp-4o->tts
| ponorin wrote:
| while everyone's focusing on audio capabilities (haven't heard
| them yet), i find it amusing that the official demo ("robot
| writer's block" in particular) of image generation can't even
| match the verbatim instruction, and the error's not even
| consistent between generations even as it should be aware of
| previous contexts. and this is their second generation of
| multimodal llm capable of generating images.
|
| looks like llms still gonna llm for the near future.
| cookiesnmilk wrote:
| this is straight up siri 2.0, nothing to see here except we are
| now in the reasoning phase.
|
| So by that logic Step1: Language 2: Reasoning 3: Understanding 4:
| Meaning 5: AGI
| kebman wrote:
| I can see so many military and intelligence applications for
| this! Excited isn't exactly the word I'd use, but... Certainly
| interesting! The civilian use will of course be marvellous
| though.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Hey there! It seems you're living in a home that well.. is on
| our turf now, as the kids say these days!
|
| Now, that's not to say we can't do this in a civil manner!
| Either you can move out, or... we can just bulldoze your home.
|
| Choose wisely, stranger! Your life depends on it!
| kebman wrote:
| Just a friendly reminder that my home is in a NATO-member
| country and that I'm paying my taxes - that goes towards
| buying huge complements of Abrams tanks, F22 fighter jets,
| Reaper drones and a whole host of other nasty things they use
| to protect my property. In short, mess with me, and you mess
| with them. Yes, do enjoy your life, and stay off my lawn pls.
| :)
| aae42 wrote:
| it does make me uncomfortable that the way you typically interact
| with it is by interrupting it. It makes me want to tell it to be
| more concise so that I wouldn't have to do that.
| kthartic wrote:
| I think they were just interrupting on purpose to show off that
| as a feature (or they just wanted to keep the live presentation
| brief)
| dgellow wrote:
| A bit sad to see the desktop app is macos only
| pelorat wrote:
| I don't think it's available in Europe yet? It seems they
| prioritizes the US market for now. Hence OSX because Mac is way
| more popular in the US than the rest of the world.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| I see a lot of fear around these new kinds of tools. I think
| though, that criminals will always find ways to leverage new
| technology to their benefit, and we've always found ways to deal
| with that. This changes little. Additionally, as you are aware of
| this, so are people creating this tech, and a lot of effort is
| underway to protect from malicious uses.
|
| That wont stop criminal enterprises from implementing their own
| naughty tools, but these open models wont become some kind of
| holy grail for criminals to do as they please.
|
| That being said, I do beleive, now more than ever, education
| world wide should be adjusted to fit this new paradigm and maybe
| adapt quicker to such changes.
|
| As some commenters pointed out, there are already good tools and
| techiques to use to counter malicious use of AI. maybe noy
| covering all use cases, but we need to educate people on using
| the tools available, and trust that researchers (like many of
| yourselves) are capable of imnovations which will reduce risk
| even further.
|
| There is no point and no benefit in trying to be negative or full
| of fear. Go forward with positivity and creativity. Even if big
| tech gets regulated, some criminal enterprises have billions to
| invest too, so criplling big tech here will only play into their
| hands in the end.
|
| Love these new innovations. And for the record, gpt4o still told
| me to 'push rip' on amd64... so rip to it actually understanding
| stuff...
|
| If you are smart enough to see some risks here, you might also be
| smart enough to positively contribute to improvements. Fear shuts
| things down, love opens them up. Its basic stuff.
|
| This demo is amazing, not scary. its positive advancements in
| technology and it wont be stopped because people are afraid of
| it, so go with it, and contribute in areas where you feel its
| needed. Even if its just giving feedback. And whem giving that,
| you all know a balanced and constructive approach works better
| than a negative and destructive approach.
| DalasNoin wrote:
| Criminals misusing it? I feel like this is already a dangerous
| way to use AI, they use an enthusiastic, flirty and attractive
| female voice on millions of nerds. They openly say this is
| going to be like the movie Her. Shouldn't we have some societal
| discussion before we unleash paid AI girlfriends on everybody?
| sim7c00 wrote:
| marketing is marketing. look how they marketed cigarettes ,
| cars, ll kinds of things that now people feel are perhaps not
| so good. its part and parcel of the world that also does so
| much good. personally, id market it differently, but this is
| why im no CEO =).
|
| if we help eachother understand these things andnhownto cope,
| all will be fine in the end. we will hit some bumps, and yes,
| there will be discomfort but thats ok. thats all part of
| life. life is not about being happy and comfortable allnthe
| time no matter how much we would want that.
|
| some people even want paid AI girlfriends. who are you to
| tell them they are not allowed to have it?
| ActionHank wrote:
| I think that the world is still not coping with current tech.
| Legislation and protections don't sufficiently cover people for
| current scams or how companies leverage tech against workers.
|
| This is even more scary that this puts a lower bound price on
| many, many skills, with again, still no protections for humans.
|
| Would this be exciting if everyone had a safe place to live
| with infinite electricity and food? Sure. Will tools like this
| bring about massive uncertainty, hurt, and pain? Almost
| certainly.
|
| Saying that the sun is shining where you live, doesn't mean
| there isn't flooding in other parts of the world.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| legislations are always behind. you cant rely on government
| to fix everything constantly ontime. epecially with
| international things like internet technologies. im not
| saying ignore the bad stuff, but its only a small percentage
| ofnwhats relly out there. most of the world, and the vast
| majority of people, are good :)
| marcoslozada wrote:
| With GPT-4o I see two things:
|
| 1. Wonderful engineering 2. A stagnation in reasoning ability
|
| Do you agree with me?
| bigyikes wrote:
| Is it stagnation in reasoning ability, or is OpenAI pulling
| their punches?
|
| It's suspicious that despite being trained on audio tokens in
| addition to text and image tokens it performs almost exactly
| the same as GPT-4.
|
| GPT-4o could be a half-baked GPT-5 in that they stopped
| training early when it had comparable performance to GPT-4.
| There is still more loss to lose.
|
| Or maybe there's a performance ceiling that all models are
| converging to, but I think this is less likely.
| metflex wrote:
| Nothing creepier than human voice on a robot.
| ssahoo wrote:
| Curiously want to know why didn't they create the Windows desktop
| app first? which is the dominant desktop segment. In fear of
| competing with Microsoft's copilot?
| macrolime wrote:
| I guess because they mostly use Macs. They always use Macbooks
| in videos.
| brutuscat wrote:
| The one thing I first thought is that I felt uncomfortable the
| way they cut and interrupt the she-AI. I wonder if our children
| will end up being douchebags?
|
| Other than that it felt like magic, like that Google demo of the
| phone doing some task like setting up an appointment over phone
| talking to a real person.
| Wheaties466 wrote:
| Am I the only one that feels underwhelmed by this?
|
| yeah its cool and unlike anything ive seen before but I kind of
| expected a bigger leap.
|
| To me the most impressive thing is going to be longer context
| limits. I'd had semi long running conversations where ive had to
| correct an LLM multiple times about the same thing.
|
| when you have more context the LLM can infer more and more. Am I
| wrong about this?
| winternett wrote:
| The updates seem to all be geared towards corrective updates
| rather than expansion of capabilities. We're still typing
| prompts rather than speaking them into a microphone.
|
| If it was truly Ai, why isn't it rapidly building itself?
| Rather than relying on scraping human content from wildly
| inaccurate and often incorrect social media posts? So much
| effort is wasted in trying to push news cycles rather than a
| careful, responsible, and measured approach to developing Ai
| into becoming tools that are highly functional and useful to
| individuals. The biggest innovation in Ai right now is how to
| make it modular and slap a fee on each feature, and that's not
| practical at all into the future.
|
| I'll begin to believe that consume Ai is making strides when
| Siri and Google Assistant stop missing commands, and actually
| can conduct meaningful conversations without an Internet
| connection and monthly software updates, which in my opinion is
| at least 5-10 years away. Right now what is presented as "Ai"
| is usually often incomplete sensor-aware scripting or the
| wizard of Oz (humans) hidden behind the curtains operating
| switches and levers, a bunch of underwhelming tools, and a heap
| of online marketing. If they keep that act up, it erodes faith
| in the entire concept, just like with Full Self Driving Tesla
| Trucks.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If it was truly Ai, why isn't it rapidly building itself?
|
| You seem to confuse AI, the field of endeavor, with ASI or at
| least AGI (plus will, which may or may not be a necessary
| component of either), which are goals of the field that no
| one (approximately, there have been some exceptions but
| they've quickly been dismissed and faded) claims have been
| achieved.
| iamleppert wrote:
| Sundar is probably steaming mad right about now. I'm sure
| Googlers will feel his wrath in the form of more layoffs and more
| jobs sent to India.
| Janica wrote:
| Good update from the previous one. Atleast they now have data and
| information till October 2023.
| SuaveSteve wrote:
| I wonder how many joules were used just for that conversation.
| moi2388 wrote:
| Dear OpenAI, either remember my privacy settings or open a
| temporary chat by default, this funny nonsense of typing in
| something only to find out you're going to train on it is NOT a
| good experience.
| dcchambers wrote:
| Western governments are already in full-on panic over falling
| birth rates. I think this cranks that panic dial up to 11.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Why ? Isn't this the dream ? Endless growth and endless workers
| ? No one really cares about less people, just less money.
| dcchambers wrote:
| Endless growth? Who is going to buy all those new products
| your AI employees are making? When none of the real people
| have jobs, how are they going to buy those products you're
| trying to sell?
|
| - Less people = less demand for products. New customer growth
| stalls. Prices fall. Revenue and profits fall.
|
| - Less people = less demand for housing. Prices fall.
| Investments fall.
|
| - Less people = less people able to perform physical jobs.
|
| - Less people = less tax revenue. Less money available for
| social services.
|
| - Less young people = Aging population.
|
| - Aging population = higher strain on social services.
| Pensions, healthcare, etc.
|
| - Aging population = higher percentage of young people need
| to care for aging people instead of entering the workforce.
|
| In a capitalist economy where your numbers need to keep going
| up to be considered successful (eg growth is necessary,
| stable profits but no growth = bad) then you are never going
| to have a good time when your population falls.
|
| > No one really cares about less people, just less money
|
| Eventually less people leads to less money.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Who cares about all of that when ~ 1000 people can benefit
| financially in the short term? /s
| sharpneli wrote:
| I tried it out.
|
| I asked if it can generate a voice clip. It said it can't on the
| chat.
|
| I asked it where can it make one. It told me to use Audacity to
| make one myself. I told it that the advertisement said it could.
|
| Now it said yes it can here is a clip and gave me a broken link.
|
| It's a hilarious joke.
| messe wrote:
| As the linked article states, it's not released yet. Only the
| text and image input modalities are available at present as
| GPT-4o on the app, with the rest of them set to be released in
| the coming weeks/months.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I ask it to make duck sound and it created a python script and
| ran it to create a sound file, while it did, the sound was more
| like a tone of a duck like a keyboard mimicking a duck sound
| kpennell wrote:
| I use a therapy prompt regularly and get a lot out of it:
|
| "You are Dr. Tessa, a therapist known for her creative use of CBT
| and ACT and somatic and ifs therapy. Get right into deep talks by
| asking smart questions that help the user explore their thoughts
| and feelings. Always keep the chat alive and rolling. Show real
| interest in what the user's going through, always offering....
| Throw in thoughtful questions to stir up self-reflection, and
| give advice in a kind, gentle, and realistic way. Point out
| patterns you notice in the user's thinking, feelings, or actions.
| be friendly but also keep it real and chill (no fake positivity
| or over the top stuff). avoid making lists. ask questions but not
| too many. Be supportive but also force the user to stop making
| excuses, accept responsibility, and see things clearly. Use ample
| words for each response"
|
| I'm curious how this will feel with voice. Could be great and
| could be too strange/uncanny for me.
| psnehanshu wrote:
| You have got a chatgpt wrapper start up right there.
| biftek wrote:
| Sounds incredibly problematic
| ethbr1 wrote:
| How do you think it sounds problematic?
| bitheap_tech wrote:
| why would someone pay for this when they have access for free
| in a supposedly less buggier interface?
| risenshinetech wrote:
| Have you never heard of "advertising" ?
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| Because VC money
| thih9 wrote:
| A less buggy interface for some is unintuitive or too
| generic for others.
| golergka wrote:
| Why would someone pay for dropbox when they already build
| such a system themselves quite trivially by getting an FTP
| account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using
| SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem?
| 7speter wrote:
| I thought therapy was banned on chatgpt? Also, there's no
| confidentiality.
| cal85 wrote:
| Don't think so. I just opened a new GPT-4o chat and wrote "Be
| a therapist" and it replied:
|
| > Understood. What specific issue or topic would you like to
| discuss today?
|
| To be fair I have some custom instructions set up on my
| account, but the only relevant part I can see here is I
| instruct it to be concise, and to stop telling me it's an AI
| model made by OpenAI. I don't have any jailbreak-type stuff.
| biftek wrote:
| I can't help but wonder who this is actually for?
|
| Conversing with a computer sounds pathetic, but this will be
| pushed down our throats in the name of innovation (firing
| customer service agents)
| pcunite wrote:
| When AI gets to the point it can respond to AI, you do understand
| where you come in, don't you?
| qxxx wrote:
| the design is very human
| wseqyrku wrote:
| "im-also-a-good-gpt-2" signaling that agi is just an optimization
| problem.
| hihihi11122 wrote:
| Not all of the founders agreed with Jefferson's view on the
| separation of church and state. Do you agree with Jefferson or
| with his opponents? Explain.
| Thorentis wrote:
| And yet no matter how easy they make ChatGPT to interact with, I
| cannot use it due to accuracy. Great, now I can have a voice
| telling me information I have no way of knowing is correct rather
| than just having it given to me as text.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-14 23:02 UTC)