[HN Gopher] We can't all use AI. Someone has to generate the tra...
___________________________________________________________________
We can't all use AI. Someone has to generate the training data
Author : redbell
Score : 34 points
Date : 2023-03-14 21:53 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| ggm wrote:
| A reminder that as long as it demands training and reinforcement
| it's almost certainly low on induction and production of new
| things.
|
| Very artificial. Not very intelligent.
| s17n wrote:
| Humans need training and reinforcement.
| ggm wrote:
| Yes, undeniably true. But what they acquire is inductive
| reasoning skills, and the production of new things.
| catach wrote:
| Do you have examples of human-created "new things" that aren't
| essentially novel combinations of old things? Because I come up
| blank. And this current crop of AI generators are very good at
| combining old things in novel ways.
|
| I do agree with your general point that these generators aren't
| really "intelligent", however. Will have to ponder if I agree
| about the induction bit.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| ...Tell that to AlphaZero?
| dogman144 wrote:
| Live validation Jaron Lanier's siren servers. All this magic is
| built on the back of free labor, from captchas to duolingo.
| rebelde wrote:
| Why write your thoughts on the web when AI/GPT is only going to
| steal and paraphrase it? Nobody sees what you write and everybody
| thinks GPT is the genius.
| olalonde wrote:
| Because you can get points on Hacker News.
| raincole wrote:
| Why write your thoughts on the web when other humans are going
| to steal and paraphrase it? I mean... you're on HN. Don't tell
| me you didn't notice people often regurgitate tech influencers
| like Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky's thoughts.
| Swizec wrote:
| Becoming part of the cultural lexicon is the ultimate goal of
| thought leadership.
|
| Just look at how many people say stuff like "Two women can't
| make a baby in 4.5 months". Someone (Brooks) had to invent,
| write down, and popularize that analogy.
| cableshaft wrote:
| Just saw something today where the wife of TotalBiscuit, who
| died of cancer several years ago, is contemplating deleting all
| of his Youtube videos[1] to prevent people from using A.I. to
| make him say terrible things.
|
| Did give me a bit of a pause about putting stuff out there.
| Although I think I'd still rather have my data be used for
| training A.I. than not (and I probably am already in the
| training data anyway, I believe I saw that one of the datasets
| it's been trained on was Hacker News comments).
|
| [1]: https://kotaku.com/totalbiscuit-john-bain-youtube-delete-
| vid...
| pklausler wrote:
| The general problem of "AI"s being trained on copyrighted
| content needs to be discussed more thoroughly, I think.
| noogle wrote:
| The current (legal) answer is "unclear". There are
| indications that training is fine, but producing and using
| the generated content is questionable at least. As many IP
| issues, it will solved only when someone will try that in
| court and go all the way until a verdict. Some cases are
| actually being processed but it might take years to get an
| answer.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Every time I bring this up, people accuse me of resisting
| progress, "the cats out of the bag", etc.
|
| It has been frustrating.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| That's why I keep my content as low quality as possible - keeps
| the machines humble.
| mo_42 wrote:
| Or the AI will trigger people to provide necessary training data.
| If I would run OpenAI I would provide a free version of ChatGPT
| that is slightly tuned to extract useful knowledge out of the
| people who use it. There might be adverserial attacks but overall
| enough people will use it blindly and provide useful information.
| People even trusted Eliza. Needless to talk about what we typed
| into Google.
| ggm wrote:
| Are you familiar with what is called "the drunkards walk"
| Because if you think stochastic inputs will not unfortunately
| admit of less benign paths being taken inside the dataset.. I
| think you're probably wrong.
|
| I have very little doubt the primary problem in the GPT<x>
| model is going to remain: it is capable of reproducing highly
| believable crap. In a world of pizzagate, that has a risk of
| becoming highly weighted "I told you so" and self-reinforcing.
| thelittleone wrote:
| Does this assume we are not AI?
| Gigachad wrote:
| Only until we plug it in to the real world with sensors and
| ability to conduct new research and observations.
| zone411 wrote:
| Human curation of AI-generated content is the true future.
| ProAm wrote:
| PG is back on Twitter? I thought he left a month or two ago?
| coldtea wrote:
| That might have been to jump on the fashionable wave virtue
| signalling wave. No longer needed anymore
| [deleted]
| StrictDabbler wrote:
| http://ascii.textfiles.com/
|
| Gosh, why would anybody bother archiving Yahoo answers,
| Angelfire, Geocities, Tumblr, Myspace, Friendster, old BBSes, old
| Apple II and C64 and PC floppies, Usenet, forums... what value
| does any of that have?
| s1k3s wrote:
| We can't all use AI. Only those of you who can afford to pay our
| subscription.
| voz_ wrote:
| The more I see of his writing, the less I think of it. I wonder
| what Diogenes would think of him...
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Behold, a man.
| pixl97 wrote:
| For a time. but as we bring audio/visual AI online then it will
| have another boom of incorporating humanities data in that form.
| Then we'll have another boom of AI robot learning by experiment
| with reality.
|
| After that point it gets tricky to figure out what if any booms
| will be next. When you get near AGI lots of horizon problems crop
| up.
| GaggiX wrote:
| People will generate the dataset using AI tools too, you can
| create garbage with or without AI, you can create useful data
| with or without AI.
| advisedwang wrote:
| A lot of the ground truth for AIs (and it's not just training
| data - it's also ongoing validation of quality) is coming from
| companies like Appen, Sama, DefinedCrowd, Q Analysts and many
| others. There's a lot of variation, but the trend is moving
| towards low-wage/gig work/outsourcing.
|
| I think Paul means someone will be writing content, but whatever
| the form it's going to be a whole class of low-wage workers
| enabling tech from here on.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| This is kind of why I created https://lowbackgroundsteel.ai.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| I have to say, I love the analogy you used for the name.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-14 23:00 UTC)