[HN Gopher] Anyone else witnessing a panic inside NLP orgs of bi... ___________________________________________________________________ Anyone else witnessing a panic inside NLP orgs of big tech companies? Author : georgehill Score : 186 points Date : 2023-03-16 11:00 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (old.reddit.com) (TXT) w3m dump (old.reddit.com) | dserban wrote: | The PR folks at my current company are in full panic mode on | Linkedin, judging from the passive-aggressive tone of their posts | (sometimes very nearly begging customers not to use ChatGPT and | friends). | | They fully understand that LLMs are stealing lunch money from | established information retrieval industry players selling | overpriced search algorithms. For a long time, my company was | deluded about being protected by insurmountable moats. I'm | watching our PR folks going through the five stages of grief very | loudly and very publicly on social media (particularly noticeable | on Linkedin). | | Here's a new trend happening these days. Upon releasing new non- | fiction books to the general public, authors are simultaneously | offering an LLM-based chatbot box where you can ask the book any | question. | | There is no good reason this should not work everywhere else, in | exactly the same way. Take for example a large retailer who has a | large internal knowledge base. Train an LLM on that corpus, ask | the knowledge base any question. And retail is a key target | market of my company. | | Needless to say I'm looking for employment elsewhere. | swatcoder wrote: | > There is no good reason this should not work everywhere else, | in exactly the same way. Take for example a large retailer who | has a large internal knowledge base. Train an LLM on that | corpus, ask the knowledge base any question. | | Since LLM's can't scope themselves to be strictly true or | accurate, there are indeed good reasons, like liability for | false claims and added traditional support burden from | incorrect guidance. | | Everybody is getting so far ahead of the horse with this stuff, | but we're just not there yet and don't know _for sure_ how far | we're going to get. | iandanforth wrote: | "LLM's can't scope themselves to be strictly true or | accurate" | | This isn't true though the techniques to do so are 1. Not as | yet widespread 2. Decrease the generality of the model and | its perceived effectiveness. | shawntan wrote: | I'm interested to hear what these techniques are. | Decreasing the generality will help, but I fail to see how | that scopes the output. At best that mitigates the errors | to an extent. | astockwell wrote: | If they are accurate for ~80% of the questions, they will be | as accurate as any 1st or 2nd line help desk. | mashygpig wrote: | > Here's a new trend happening these days. Upon releasing new | non-fiction books to the general public, authors are | simultaneously offering an LLM-based chatbot box where you can | ask the book any question. | | Can you link to an example? | org3 wrote: | https://portal.konjer.xyz/ | throwayyy479087 wrote: | Some of the responses I've had so far to this are | remarkable. Kind of scary. | dserban wrote: | I saw at least two examples of this here on HN. One of the | books was about tech entrepreneurship 101, and I remember | asking how to launch if you're a sole developer with no legal | entity behind the product. I remember the answer being fairly | coherent and useful. I don't have the URL handy, I suspect if | you search HN for "entrepreneur book" you'll find it. | [deleted] | craftyguy98 wrote: | Haha, you work at Algolia. RIP F o7 | twawaaay wrote: | I think education goal for people shifted. I teach my kids to be | flexible and embrace the change. Invest in abilities that | transfer well to various things you could be doing during your | life. Be a problem solver. | | In the future -- forget about cosy job you can be doing for the | rest of your life. You no longer have any guarantees even if you | own the business and even if you are farmer. | | What you absolutely don't want is spend X years at uni learning | something, and then 5-10 years into your "career" finding out it | was obsoleted overnight and you now don't have plan B. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | > What you absolutely don't want is spend X years at uni | learning something, and then 5-10 years into your "career" | finding out it was obsoleted overnight and you now don't have | plan B. | | That seems to be running directly opposite of the current trend | of admin assistant jobs requiring 2 years specialized admin | assistant diplomas. Tech (and I would guess the world of the | business MBA) is a unique space where people are learning and | changing so quickly, but for a lot of those outside the bubble | things seem to be calcifying and requiring more and more | training at the expensive of the worker. | yoyohello13 wrote: | Really the only safe career in the moderate future is going to | be manual labor. There is always need to send a bunch of humans | into the middle of nowhere to dig ditches. | throwayyy479087 wrote: | https://grist.org/energy/electrician-shortage-electrify- | ever... | | Extremely relevant story | rr888 wrote: | Liberal arts education will one day be back in fashion. | twawaaay wrote: | Oh I do believe it. There will always be a market for snobs | who will want to pay extra for handmade things vs AI- | generated. The issue here is that it is all driven by fads | and unstable. If you want to make money you will have to be | flexible. | version_five wrote: | This is imo a wake-up call about the value of having "AI teams" | embedded in companies. | | Bad analogy- if you had an integrated circuit team in your | product company building custom CPUs and Intel came out with the | 8080 (or whatever was the first modern commercial chip), probably | time to disband the org and use the commercial tech | rdedev wrote: | My university professor who specialises in NLP kinda feels like | what's the point of research in the time of chatgpt. He says for | now it's not possible to scale retrieval easily when using these | llms so that's what he is looking into for now | bsder wrote: | I guess I'm not panicked about my job in the face of AI because | _objective correctness_ is required. I _dream_ about the day that | OpenAI can write the 100 lines of code that connect the BLE | stack, the ADC sensor and the power management code so that my | IoT sensor doesn 't crash once every 8 days. | | I see the AI stuff as _very_ different from, say, the | microcomputer revolution. People had _LOTS_ of things they wanted | to use computers for, but the computers were simply too | expensive. | | As soon as microprocessors arrived, people had _LOTS_ of things | they were already waiting to apply them to. Factory automation | was _screaming_ for computers. Payroll management was _screaming_ | for computers. | | I don't see that with the current AI stuff. What thing was | waiting for NLP/OpenAI to get good enough? | | Yes, things like computer games opened up whole new vistas, and | maybe AI will do that, but that's a 20 year later thing. What | stuff was screaming for AI right now? Maybe transcription? | | When I see the search bar on any of my favorite forums suddenly | become useful, I'll believe that OpenAI stuff actually works. | | Finally, the real problem is that OpenAI needs to cough up what I | want but then it needs to cough up the _original references_ to | what I want. I normally don 't make other humans do that. If I'm | asking someone for advice, I've already ascertained that I can | trust them and I'm probably going to accept their answers. If | it's random conversation and interesting or unusual, I'll mark | it, but I'm not going to incorporate it until I verify. | | Although, given the current political environment, pehaps I | _should_ ask other humans to give me more references. | [deleted] | TMWNN wrote: | Is the entire field of data science (Itself maybe a decade old in | terms of being a college major?) now obsolete, in terms of being | a distinct job field? Are all data science majors now going to be | "just" coming up with the proper prompts to get GPT to correctly | massage datasets? | theGnuMe wrote: | No. It's always been about posing the right question. | drewda wrote: | I wonder if this will be a repeat of what happened with speech | recognition. It used to be a specialized field dominated by | smaller companies like Nuance. | | More recently Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. decided they wanted | to have speech recognition as an internal piece of their | platforms. | | Google poached lots of Nuance's talent. And then Microsoft bought | what remained of the company. | | Now speech recognition is a service integrated into the larger | tech company's platforms, and also uses their more statistical/ML | approaches, rather than being a component created by specialist | companies/groups. | | (I'm sure I'm grossly simplifying this -- just seeing a potential | parallel.) | dongobread wrote: | I worked in a research capacity in the voice assistant org of a | big tech company until very recently. There was a lot of panic | when ChatGPT came out, as it became clear that the vast bulk of | the org's modeling work and research essentially had no future. I | feel bad for some of my colleagues who were really specialized in | specific NLP technology niches (e.g. building NLU ontologies) | which have been made totally obsolete by these generalized LLMs. | | Personally - I'm moving to more of a focus on analytical | modeling. There is really nothing interesting about deep learning | to me anymore. The reality is that any new useful DL models will | be coming out of mega-teams in a few companies, where improving | output through detailed understanding of modeling is less cost | effective than simply increasing data quality and scale. Its all | very boring to me. | mr_toad wrote: | " Seeking an improvement that makes a difference in the shorter | term, researchers seek to leverage their human knowledge of the | domain, but the only thing that matters in the long run is the | leveraging of computation. " | | http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html | shawntan wrote: | I've seen many interpretations of this article and I'm | curious as to the mainstream CS reading of it. | | One could look at the move from linear models to non-linear | models or the use of ConvNets (yes I know ViTs exist, to my | knowledge the base layers are still convolution layers) as | 'leveraging human knowledge'. Only after those shifts were | made did the leveraging of computation help. It would seem to | me that the naive reading of that quote only rings true | between breakthroughs. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Wow - this is just wild. I've seen lots of arguments around "AI | won't take everyone's job, it will just open up new areas for new | jobs." Even if you take that with the benefit of the doubt (which | I don't really think is warranted): | | 1. You don't need to take everyone's job. You just need to take a | shitload of people's jobs. I think a lot of our current | sociological problems, problems associated with wealth | inequality, etc., are due to the fact that lots of people no | longer have competitive enough skills because technology made | them obsolete. | | 2. The state of AI progress makes it impossible for humans in | many fields to keep up. Imagine if you spent your entire career | working on NLP, and now find GPT-4 will run rings around whatever | you've done. What do you do now? | | I mean, does anyone think that things like human translators, | medical transcriptionists, court reporters, etc. will exist as | jobs at all in 10-20 years? Maybe 1-2 years? It's fine to say | "great, that can free up people for other thing", but given our | current economic systems, how are these people supposed to eat? | | EDIT: I see a lot of responses along the lines of "Have you seen | the bugs Google/Bing Translate has?" or "Imagine how frustrated | you get with automated chat bots now!" Gang, the _whole point_ is | that GPT-4 blows these existing models out of the water. People | _who work in these fields_ are blown away by the huge advances in | quality of output in just a short time. So I 'm a bit baffled why | folks are comparing the annoyances of ordering at a McDonald's | automated kiosk to what state-of-the-art LLMs can do. And | reminder that the first LLM was only created in 2018. | JamesAdir wrote: | You are a founder of a startup. A notable VC wants to invest | millions of dollars but insists that the contract will be in | their language which is Finnish. Would you trust GPT to | translate the contract or reach out to a professional human | translator? We've got Google translate from 2006, and there are | still millions of translators at work all around the world. I | wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those jobs. | parker_mountain wrote: | I don't think it's so simple. | | A few counter-notes | | - Google translate and its ilk have already significantly cut | down the number of translators required for multinational | companies. Google translate in 2006 is also a bad example, it | really only got excellent in the past few years. | | - I would trust GPT to write the first draft, and then hire a | translator to check it. That goes from many billable hours to | one, or two. That is a material loss of work for said | translator. | | - High profile translations, as your example is, are a sharp | minority of existing translator jobs. | q845712 wrote: | I was just using bing translate last night, and it was | literally making up english words that do not exist - I tried | to google for them to see if it was just some archaic word, | and it was complete fabrication. So I dunno how many years | are left before we all trust machine translation | unflinchingly, but I agree today's not the day. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Try it on GPT-4, not Google or Bing Translate: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35180715 | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I think you are vastly underestimating how Google Translate, | Bing Translate and others compare to GPT-4: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35180715 | pxc wrote: | > I mean, does anyone think that things like human translators, | medical transcriptionists, court reporters, etc. will exist as | jobs at all in 10-20 years? Maybe 1-2 years? It's fine to say | "great, that can free up people for other thing", but given our | current economic systems, how are these people supposed to eat? | | And it doesn't mean that the replacements will even be much | good. They will probably suck in ways that will become familiar | and predictable, and at the same time irritating and | inescapable. Think of the outsourced, automated voice systems | at your doctor's office, self-checkout at the grocery store, | those touchscreen kiosks at McDonalds, etc. | | I already find myself ready to scream | | > GIVE ME A FUCKING HUMAN BEING | | every now and then. That's only going to get worse. | malermeister wrote: | > given our current economic systems, how are these people | supposed to eat? | | I've said it before and I'll say it again. This right here is | the crux of the issue. The only way people get to eat is if we | change the economic systems. | | Capitalism supercharged by AI will lead to misery for almost | everyone, with a few Musks, Bezoses and Thiels being our | neofeudal overlords. | | The only hope is a complete break in economic systems, towards | a techno-utopian socialism. AI could free us from having to do | work to survive and usher in a Star Trek-like vision of the | future where people are free to pursue their passions for their | own sake. | | We're at a fork in the road. We need to make sure we take the | right path. | mostlysimilar wrote: | It will take massive cooperation. Given how rough it was to | make it through the pandemic... how can we hope to come | together on something this daunting? | malermeister wrote: | I hope I'm wrong, but I worry that the change will come the | same way it came to Tsarist Russia or to the Ancien Regime. | | Things will get worse and worse until they boil over. | chaostheory wrote: | > I mean, does anyone think that things like human translators, | medical transcriptionists, court reporters, etc. will exist as | jobs at all in 10-20 years? | | Before mechanical alarm clocks, there were people paid to tap | on windows to wake them up. | jMyles wrote: | > given our current economic systems | | What can possibly be the benefit of requiring this constraint? | | Remove the idea that this is necessary and watch how much | relaxation comes to the deliberation on this topic. | | "Current economic systems" will simply have to yield. Along | with states. This has been obvious for decades now. Deep | breaths, everybody. :-) | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > What can possibly be the benefit of requiring this | constraint? | | It's not "requiring this constraint". If you have some | plausible pathway to get from our current system to some | "Star Trek-like nirvana", I'm all ears. Hand-wavy-ness | doesn't cut it. | | > "Current economic systems" will simply have to yield. | | Why? For most of human history there were a few overloads and | everyone else was starving half the time. Even look at now. | I'm guessing you probably live a decent existence in a decent | country, but meanwhile billions of people around the world | (who can't compete skills-wise with upper income countries) | barely eke out an existence. | | For the world that just lived through the pandemic, do you | honestly see systems changing when worldwide cooperation and | benevolence is a prerequisite? | WalterBright wrote: | Think of people who have jobs like archaeology, digging up | bones. The only way these jobs can exist is if technology has | taken over much of the grunt work of production. | | As for human translators, the need for them far, far exceeds | the number of them. Have you ever needed translation help? I | sure have, but no human translator was available or was too | expensive. | layer8 wrote: | > was too expensive. | | This is probably the real problem. Translators are payed shit | nowadays for what is a really high-skill job. I have | translators in the extended family who had to give up on that | line of work because the pay wouldn't sustain them anymore. | adelie wrote: | yep, exactly. the issue isn't that there will no longer be | a need for human translators - machine translation makes | subtle mistakes that legal/technical fields will need a | human to double-check. | | the issue is that many translation jobs will, and already | are, being replaced with 'proofread machine translation | output' jobs that simply don't pay enough. translation | checking is careful, detailed work that often takes almost | as much time as translating passages yourself, yet it pays | a third or less of the rate because 'the machine is doing | most of the work.' | layer8 wrote: | I don't think it's really because "the machine is doing | most of the work", but because there's no good way for | clients to assess the quality of the supplemental human | work, and therefore the market gets flooded with subpar | translators who do the task sloppily on the cheap, in a | way that still passes as acceptable. | nidnogg wrote: | When you have to use any documents within another country | that doesn't list their original languages as official, not | much, if anything at all, is machine-translated AFAIK. Is | this not the case for most legal paperwork as well? You | almost always need certified translation (by a human), for | which you have to pay out a reasonable sum. And if it's not a | good translator, you pay double. | | e.g. Italian citizenship can cost as much as a brand new car | in Brazil and almost half of that cost could come from | certified translation hurdles. | Tiktaalik wrote: | > does anyone think that things like human translators, medical | transcriptionists, court reporters, etc. will exist as jobs at | all in 10-20 years? Maybe 1-2 years? | | Maybe the very, very basic transcription/translation stuff | might go away, but arguably this race to the bottom market was | already being killed by google translate as bad as it is | anyway. | | In areas where quality is required (eg. localizing video games | from japanese to english and vis versa) people would be | (justifiably) fussy about poor localization quality even when | the translation was being done by humans, so I have to imagine | that people will continue to be fussy and there will still be | significant demand for quality job done by people who aren't | just straight translating text, but _localizing_ text for a | different audience from another culture. | dogcomplex wrote: | It is very obvious there is a mass unemployment wave coming - | or at least a mass "retraining" wave, though the new jobs | "teaching AIs" or whatever remain to be seen. I hope everyone | currently just questioning whether this will happen now is | prepared to state it with conviction in the coming months and | fight for some sort of social protection program for all these | displaced people, because the profits from this new world | aren't getting distributed without a fight. | psychphysic wrote: | If not unemployment and retraining then a lot of people are | going to need to miraculously become better at their jobs. | | I somehow imagine it'll be the worst of both worlds but I'm a | glass half empty kind of guy. | moffkalast wrote: | Well it won't be miraculously, it'll be by using the AI | tools to augment their work if anything. But probably | unemployment. | JohnFen wrote: | Retraining only works if there are jobs available. | jll29 wrote: | > Imagine if you spent your entire career working on NLP, and | now find GPT-4 will run rings around whatever you've done. What | do you do now? | | I have been doing NLP since 1993. Before ca. 1996, there were | mostly rule-based systems that were just toys. They lacked | robustness. Then statistical systems came up and things like | spell-checking (considering context when doing it), part of | speech tagging and eventually even parsing started to work. | Back then, people could still only analyze sentences with fewer | than 40 words - the rest was often cut off. Then came more and | more advanced machine learning models (decision trees, HMMs, | CRFs), first a whole zoo, and then support vector regressors | (SVM/SVR) ate everything else for breakfast. Then in machine | learning a revival of neural networks happened, because better | training algorithms were discovered, more data became available | and cheap GPUs were suddenly available because kids needed them | for computer games. This led to what some call the "deep | learning revolution". Tasks like speech recognition where | people for decades tried to squeeze out another half percent | drop in error rate suddenly made huge jumps, improving quality | by 35% - so jaws dropped. (But today's models like BERT still | only can process 512 words of text.) | | So it is understandable that people worry at several ends. To | lose jobs, to render "NLP redundant". I think that is not | merited. Deep neural models have their own set of problems, | which need to be solved. In particular, lack of transparency | and presence of different types of bias, but also the size and | energy consumption. Another issue is that for many tasks, no | much data is actually available. The big corps like Google/Meta | etc. push the big "foundational" models because in the consumer | space there is ample data available. But there are very | important segments (notably in the professional space - | applications for accountants, lawyers, journalists, | pharmacologists - all of which I have conducted projects | in/for), where training data can be constructed for a lot of | money, but it will never reach the size of the set of today`s | FB likes. There will always be a need for people who build | bespoke systems or customize systems for particular use cases | or languages, so my bet is things will stay fun and exciting. | | Also note that "NLP" is a vast field that includes much more | than just word based language models. The field of | propositional (logical) semantics, which is currently | disconnected from the so-called foundational models, is much | more fascinating than, say, chatGPT if you ask me. The people | there, linguist-logicians like Johan Bos identify laws that | restrict what a sentence can mean, given its structure, and | rules how to map from sentences like "The man gave the girl a | rose" to their functor-argument structure - something like | "give(man_0, rose_1)" - which models the "who did what to | whom?". When such symbolic approaches are integrated with | neural foundational models, there will be a much bigger | breakthrough than what we are seeing today (mark my words!). | Because these tools, for instance Lambda Discourse | Representation Theory and friends, permit you to represent how | the meaning of "man bites dog" is different from "dog bites | man". | | So whereas today`s models SEEM a bit intelligent, but are | actually only sophisticated statistical parrots, the future | will bring something more principled. Then the " | "hallucinations" of models will stop. | | I am glad I am in the field of NLP - it has been getting more | exciting every year since 1993, and the best time still lies | ahead! | yunyu wrote: | BERT can process 512 tokens. LLAMA and FLAN-UL2 can process | 2048 tokens. GPT-4 can process 32768 tokens, and is much | better at ignoring irrelevant context. | | These general models can be fine tuned with domain specific | data with a very small number of samples, and have | surprisingly good transfer performance (beating classical | models). New research like LORA/PEFT are making things like | continuous finetuning possible. Statistical models also do a | much better job at translating sentences to formal structure | than the old ways ever did - so I wouldn't necessarily view | those fields are disconnected. | | I agree with the general sentiment, there are still major | issues with the newer generation of models and things aren't | fully cracked yet. | mr_toad wrote: | > Another issue is that for many tasks, no much data is | actually available. The big corps like Google/Meta etc. push | the big "foundational" models because in the consumer space | there is ample data available. But there are very important | segments (notably in the professional space - applications | for accountants, lawyers, journalists, pharmacologists - all | of which I have conducted projects in/for), where training | data can be constructed for a lot of money, but it will never | reach the size of the set of today`s FB likes. | | This is a really important point. GPT-x knows nothing about | my database schema, let alone the data in that schema, it | can't it learn it, and it's too big to fit in a prompt. | | Until we have AI that can learn _on the job_ it's like some | delusional consultant who thinks they have all the solutions | on day 1 and understands nothing about the business. | eternalban wrote: | > how are these people supposed to eat? | | My gut feeling is that AI is the 'social historic change' that | will make UBI politically viable and a reality. | yyyk wrote: | There are three 'markets' for translators: | | * Verbal translation, where accuracy is usually important | enough to want to also have a human onboard since humans still | have an easier time with certain social clues. | | * High-culture translation, where there's a lot to personal | choice and explaining it. GPT can give out many versions but | can't yet sufficiently explain its reasoning, nor would its | tastes necessarily match that of humans. | | * Technical translations for manuals and such. This market will | be under severe threat from GPTs, though for high-accuracy | cases one would still want a human editor just in case. | | All in all, GPT will contract the market, but many human | translators will be fine. There's still areas where you'd still | want a human, and deskilling isn't a bug threat - a human can | decide to immerse and get experience directly, and many will | still do so by necessity. | screye wrote: | > human translators, medical transcriptionists, court reporters | | Yes, they will be all called 'ai data labellers'. | | For a long time, "People don't just want jobs, they want good | jobs" was the slogan of industries that automated the boring | stuff. Now AI is suddenly good at all the jobs people actually | want and the only thing it can't do is self-improve. In an AI | future, mediocre anything will not exist anymore. | | Either you are brilliant enough to be sampling from 'out of | distribution', or you're in the other 99 percent normies that | follow the standard : "learn -> imitate -> internalize -> | practice" cycle. That other 99% is now and eternally inferior | to an AI. | UmYeahNo wrote: | >In an AI future, mediocre anything will not exist anymore. | | Right! Aren't we all mediocre before we're excellent? Isn't | every entry level job some version of trying to get past | being mediocre? i.e. Isn't a jr developer "mediocre" compared | to a senior dev? If AI replaces the jr dev, how will anyone | become a senior dev if they never got the chance to gain | experience to become less mediocre? | mxkopy wrote: | What should happen is a thorough investigation of our | assumptions about economics and see if they hold true. 20-30 | years ago saying "just get a robot to do it" would've been met | with great cynicism, but now it's not that unthinkable. | Especially once we apply what we learn to robotics - at that | point doing things at scale is just playing an RTS | timoth3y wrote: | The problem is not that automation will eliminate our jobs. | | The problem is that we have created an economy where that is a | bad thing. | elwell wrote: | The problem is that humans are often selfish. | pcthrowaway wrote: | I don't think it's the economy, it's the policy. Automating a | shit-ton of jobs is _great_ for the economy. The economy is | just fine if 90% of people are starving because big corps are | saving shit-tons of money. | | The government of a wealthy country should ensure that its | citizens are able to eat, and have a sheltered place to | sleep, without them needing to work. Because the way things | are going, there won't be enough work to go around. Even now, | with the supposed "labour shortage" there are record numbers | of homeless people, and people living paycheck-to-paycheck. | Housing is more unaffordable than ever. Minimum wage is not | keeping up with the economic realities. | | Governments need to step in; they need to change policy so | big corps are paying more taxes, and that tax goes to a basic | income that can cover the cost of housing and the cost of | food. Maybe not right away, maybe it starts at $100/month. | But eventually the goal should be to get everyone on a basic | income that can cover the necessities, then if they want to | be able to enjoy luxuries (concerts, gourmet food, hobbies, | streaming services, etc.) they can choose to work. | pyuser583 wrote: | The problem starts long before AI takes the jobs. | | I used to do a job that was eventually automated. We did the | one and only thing the computer couldn't do - again and again | in a very mechanical fashion. | | It was a shit job. You might get promoted to supervisor - but | that was like being a supervisor at McDonalds. | | Why not treat the job seriously? Why didn't the company use it | as a way to recruit talent? Why didn't the workers unionize? | | Because we all knew it would be automated anyway. | | We were treated like robots, and we treated the org like it was | run by robots. | | There's a huge shadow over the economy that treats most new | jobs like shit jobs. | xwdv wrote: | Even in a world of perfect AI, there will be plenty of jobs. | Anything involving movement and manipulation of matter will | still require humans for the time being. We're not at a point | yet where an intelligent an AI could simply build you a house | without human labor involved. | | Many of these jobs are cheap and easy to understand and quick | to train in. These aren't the kind of jobs people probably | wanted, but they'll be there. | yoyohello13 wrote: | Now 90% of humanity can toil for 12 hours a day in the fields | to support the 10% who own all the machines. Super awesome! | xwolfi wrote: | Come on, we could do it when we abandonned the horses, we can | do it again. | mitthrowaway2 wrote: | Do you mean "the glue factory is always hiring"? | csa wrote: | > I think a lot of our current sociological problems, problems | associated with wealth inequality, etc., | | I see where you're coming from, but is this really the main | source of the inequality? | | Based on numbers relating to workers' diminishing share of | profits, it seems to be that the capital class has been able to | take a bigger piece of the profit pie without sharing. In the | past, companies have shared profits more widely due to | benevolence (it happens), government edict (e.g., ww2 era), or | social/political pressure (e.g., post-war boom). | | Fwiw, I think that the mid-20th century build up of the middle | class was an anomaly (sadly), and perhaps we are just reverting | to the norm in terms of capital class and worker class | extremes. | | I see tons of super skilled folks still getting financially | fucked by the capital class simply because there is no real | option other than to try to attempt to become part of the | capital class. | mr_toad wrote: | There is no sharing and there never was. Companies don't | share profits with workers and they never have. Workers get | paid on the _marginal_ value of their productivity, not some | portion of the total or average. | [deleted] | WalterBright wrote: | > Based on numbers relating to workers' diminishing share of | profits, it seems to be that the capital class has been able | to take a bigger piece of the profit pie without sharing. | | Consider the elephant in the room: | | https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/federal-spending- | per... | | Where does that money come from? | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > the capital class has been able to take a bigger piece of | the profit pie without sharing. | | In the current world, where do you think a lot of the capital | class is able to get their capital? | | Technological progress, and especially the Internet, has made | much bigger markets out of what were previously lots of | little markets, and now th "winner take all/most" dynamics | make it so that where you previously could have, for example, | lots of "winners" in every city (e.g. local newspapers | selling classified ads), where now Google, FB and Amazon | gobble up most ad dollars - I think someone posted that | Amazon's ad business alone is bigger than _all_ US (maybe | more than that?) newspaper ad businesses. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I have family that has been on the front lines of fighting | global poverty and corruption, for their entire life (more | than 50 years -at the very highest levels). | | I submit that it is not hyperbole to say that probably 95% of | all global human problems can have their root cause traced to | poverty. That is not a scientific number, so don't ask for a | citation (it ain't happening). | xp84 wrote: | I think you and the one you're replying to are both very | right. | | Yes, more of this money is going, instead of middle-class | workers, straight to the capital class who own the "machines" | that do the work people used to do. Except instead of it | being a factory that makes industrial machines owned by some | wealthy industrialist, the machines are things like Google | and AWS and the owners are the small number of people with | significant stock holdings. | | It's really striking though that a person graduating high | school in say, 1970, could easily pick from a number of | career choices even without doing college or even learning an | in-demand trade, like plumbing, welding, etc. Factory work | still existed and had a natural career progression that | wasn't basically minimum wage, and the same went for retail. | Sure, McDonalds burger flippers didn't expect then to own the | restaurant in 10 years, but you could take lots of retail or | clerical jobs, advance through hard work and support a family | on those wages. Those are the days that are super gone and I | totally agree with you both that something has changed for | the worse for everyone who's not already wealthy. | prottog wrote: | > but you could take lots of retail or clerical jobs, | advance through hard work and support a family on those | wages. Those are the days that are super gone | | Only in certain places, and only mostly due to crazy | policies that made housing ridiculously unaffordable. I'm | in an area where my barber lives on 10 acres of land he | didn't inherit and together with his wife raises two | children. This type of relaxed life is possible to do in | wide swathes of the country outside of the tier-one cities | that have global competition trying to get in and live | there, as long as you make prudent choices. | | I think 20- to 30-something engineers who have spent their | entire adult lives in major coastal cities have a huge | blind spot to how middle America lives. | amrocha wrote: | That kind of life is not achievable on minimum wage, even | if you choose to live in a small city | HPsquared wrote: | Only about 1% of workers are on minimum wage, you | wouldn't expect an average lifestyle from that. | aleph_minus_one wrote: | > It's really striking though that a person graduating high | school in say, 1970, could easily pick from a number of | career choices even without doing college or even learning | an in-demand trade, like plumbing, welding, etc. [...] | Those are the days that are super gone | | Isn't this rather a strong argument for the claim that what | high school as of today teaches is a strong mismatch with | what the labour market demands? In other words: the pupils | are taught skills for many years of their life that are | rather worthless for the job market. | mbgerring wrote: | You can still do that with plumbing and welding | xp84 wrote: | Sorry, my phrasing was bad. Totally agree, even today | trades are still AMAZING for this. I meant even if you | were to _set aside_ the trades, 50 years ago there was | plenty of stuff you could at least support a family on | without even that level of specialized skill. You could | "start in the mailroom" or on the sales floor and end up | in middle management after 20 years, in a variety of | companies, most of which don't even exist anymore, or if | they do, they employ far fewer workers domestically today | due to a combo of offshoring and automation. | zwkrt wrote: | IMO the "main source of inequality" is that tech allows a | small number of people to use technological and fiscal | leverage to make an outsized impact on society as a whole. | Anyone who has a job that produces value in a 1:1 way is | positioned to be 'disrupted'. NLP, etc, just provides more | tools for companies to increase their leverage in the market. | My bet is that GPT-4 is probably better at being a paralegal | than at least some small number of paralegals. GPT-5 will be | better at that job than a larger percentage. | | Anyone who only has the skills to affect the lives and/or | environments of the people in their immediate surrounding are | going to find themselves on the 'have nots' end of the | spectrum in the coming decades. | mostlysimilar wrote: | This is possibly a death spiral. GPT is only possible because | it's been trained on the work humans have learned to do and | then put out in the world. Now GPT is as good as them and will | put them all out of work. How can it improve if the people who | fed it are now jobless? | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Also what happens to the intuition and unwritten skills that | humans learned and passed on over time? Sure, the model has | probably internalized them implicitly from the training data. | But what happens in a case where you need to have a human | perform the task again (say after a devastating war)? The | ones with the arcane knowledge are gone, and now humans are | starting from scratch. | mostlysimilar wrote: | Incredible that we've been writing speculative fiction | about this for decades and still we sleepwalk right into | it. I'd love to be wrong, but I think we're all still too | divided and self-interested for this kind of technology to | be successfully integrated. A lot of people are going to | suffer. | salad-tycoon wrote: | It's not just sci fi. It's has already happened in past | with construction. Things like pyramids and certain | cathedrals and what not are no longer possible even with | machines. At least this is what I've read and heard, I'm | not actually an engineer or architect. | | Tangent, I'm looking for some sci fi about this topic. | Any suggestions? | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Literally everything you do online is training data. This | comment and discussion is future training data. Your browser | history is logged somewhere and will be training data. Your | OS probably spies on what you do...training data. It's | training data all the way down. And they've hardly begun to | take into account the physical world, video, music, etc. as | training data. | jgust wrote: | Presumably this problem is solved with technology | improvements or the need is recognized to hire experts | capable of generating high quality training material. In | either situation, there's going to be extreme discomfort. | mostlysimilar wrote: | GPT is good because of collective knowledge, lots of data. | What do you have in mind by "hire experts"? Isn't that what | we have now? Many experts in many fields, hired to do their | work. Cut this number down and you reduce training data. | jgust wrote: | Let's assume that GPT eliminates an entire field of | experts, runs out of training data, and whoever is at the | helm of that GPT program decides that it's lucrative | enough to obtain more/better data. One alternative is | subsidizing these experts to do this type of work and | plug it directly into the model. I don't expect the | nature of the work to change, more likely it's the | signature on the check and the availability of the | datasets. | yoyohello13 wrote: | There is a problem, how will people become experts in the | field. If all entry level positions are taken by AI, nobody | will be able to become an expert. | WalterBright wrote: | Imagine the devastation wrought by automatic looms, that put | all the weavers out of a job! | | 97% of jobs used to be working on the farm. Now it's | something like 2%. | moffkalast wrote: | Can't wait for the economy that is 97% twitch streamers | because that's all what humans are left qualified for. /s | msm_ wrote: | You joke, but an economy that is 97% artists (aka content | creators) sounds... good? Isn't this the utopic end goal | after we automate the scarcity out of our lifes? | salad-tycoon wrote: | Have you seen some of that content? This sounds like a | level in Dante's inferno, all day everyday all "these" | (and myself probably ) people going blah blah blah into | the either. Navel gazing to the extreme. | moffkalast wrote: | In theory it's great, in practice... who knows. The cynic | in me would expect it to go worse than anyone could ever | imagine. If everything is automated, why do you still | need humans? | 1attice wrote: | This hoary take irks me. There were _still places for human | endeavour to go_ when the looms were automated. | | That is no longer the case. | | Think of it instead as cognitive habitat. Sure, there has | been habitat loss in the past, but those losses have been | offset by habitat gains elsewhere. | | This time, I don't see anywhere for habitat gains to come, | and I see a massive, enormous, looming (ha!) cognitive | habitat loss. | | -- EDIT: | | Reply to reply, posted as edit because I hit the HN rate | limit: | | > Your job didn't exist then. Mine didn't, either. | | Yes, that was my point. New habitat opened up. I infer (but | cannot prove) that the same will not be true this time. At | the least, the newly-created habitat (prompt engineer, | etc.) will be miniscule compared to what has been lost. | | Reasoning from historical lessons learned during the | introduction of TNT was of course tried when nuclear arms | were created as well. Yet lessons from the TNT era proved | ineffective at describing the world that was ushered into | being. Firebombing, while as destructive as a small nuclear | warhead, was _hard_ , requiring fantastic air and ground | support to achieve. Whereas dropping nukes is easy. It was | precisely that ease-of-use that raised the profile of game | theory and Mutually Assured Destruction, tit-for-tat, and | all the other novelties occurrent in the nuclear world and | not the one it supplanted. | | Arguing from what happened with looms feels like the sort | of undergrad maneuver that makes for a good term paper, but | lousy economic policy. _So_ many disanalogies. | WalterBright wrote: | > There were still places for human endeavour to go when | the looms were automated. | | Your job didn't exist then. Mine didn't, either. | [deleted] | xp84 wrote: | Presumably it will improve the same way humans did -- once | it's roughly on par with us it'll be just as capable of | innovating and trying new things. The only difference is that | for humans, trying a truly new approach to something isn't | really done that often by most. "GPT-9" might regularly and | automatically try recomputing all the "tricky problems" it | remembers from the past with updated models, or with a few | tweaked parameters and then analyze whether any of these | experiments provided "better" solutions. And it might do this | operation during all idle cycles continuously. | | Honestly as a human who grasps how the economy works, this | doesn't sound like a good thing, but I don't see any path to | trying the fundamental changes that would be required for | really good general AI to not be an absolute Depression | generator. | | The only thing I'm wondering is, will the wealthiest ones, | who actually have any power to influence these fundamental | thing, figure this out before it's too late? I really doubt | your Musks and Bezoses would enjoy living out their lives on | ring-fenced compounds or remote islands while the rest of the | world devolves into the Hunger Games. | bloppe wrote: | Technology never affects the economy in isolation. It acts in | concert with policy. Broadly speaking, inequality rises when | capital is significantly more valuable than labor. The value of | either depends on taxes, the education system, technology, and | many other factors. We're never going to stop technology. We | just have to adjust the other knobs and levers to make its | impact positive. | martindbp wrote: | Not big tech (or PhD level research), but half the work I did on | my side project (subtitles for Chinese learning/OCR) is sort of | obsolete now, most of the rest of it within a year or two. I put | months into an NLP pipeline to segment Chinese sentences, | classifying pinyin and translating words in-context, something | ChatGPT is great at out the box. My painstaking heuristic for | determining show difficulty using word frequencies and comparing | distributions to children's shows is now the simple task of | giving part of the transcript and asking ChatGPT how difficult it | is. Next up, the OCR I did will probably be solved by ChatGPT4. | It seems the writing is on the wall: most tasks on standard media | (text/images/video), will be "good enough" for non-critical use. | The only remaining advantage of bespoke solutions is speed and | cost and that will also be a fleeting advantage. | | But it's also extremely exciting, we'll be able to build really | great things very easily, and focus our efforts elsewhere. Today | anyone can throw together a language learning tutor to rival | Duolingo. As long as you're in it for solving problems you | shouldn't be too threatened by whatever tool set you're currently | becoming obsolete. | epups wrote: | Everyone here is saying that people can simply transition easily | into startups and other big companies. To a certain extent that's | true, but what exactly are they going to do? As technology | consolidates into one or two major LLM's, likely only accessible | by API, I feel most orgs would be better served by relying | heavily on finetuning or optimizing those for their purpose. | Previous experience with NLP certainly helps with that, although | this type of work would not necessarily be as exciting as trying | to build the next big thing, which everyone was scrambling for | before. | | OpenAI could build a state-of-the-art tool with a few hundred | developers - to me, that means that money will converge to them | and other big orgs rather than the opposite. | Yoric wrote: | That's definitely a risk. | | With a PhD in the domain, I consider myself pretty good at (a | subset of) distributed programming. But these days, when | companies hire for distributed programming, they seem to want | developers who know a specific set of tools and APIs. I'm more | suited at reimplementing them for scratch. | jurassic wrote: | Maybe this is alarmist, but I don't see how LLMs don't collapse | our entire economic system over the next decade or so. This is | coming for all of us, not just the NLP experts in big company | research groups. Being able to cheaply/instantly perform | virtually any task is great until you realize there is now nobody | left to buy your product or service because the entire middle | class has been put out of work by LLMs. And the service | industries that depend on those middle class knowledge workers | will be out of work because nobody can afford to purchase their | services. I don't see how this doesn't end with guillotines | coming out for the owner class and/or terrorism against the | companies powering this revolution. I hope I'm wrong. | qwerty3344 wrote: | There are entire sectors of the economy that LLMs can't touch - | hospitality, manufacturing, caregivers, religious sectors, | live-action entertainment, etc. Sure some of these will be | replaced by robots but there will always be new jobs too. | seydor wrote: | white collar workers detest these jobs | | the only reason they studied, went to university etc was to | avoid doing manual labour. this has been happening for | decades, a century. they ll be depressed | krapp wrote: | Just give them the same lecture they like to trot out about | supply and demand and how automation simply creates new | opportunities. And then have an AI compose a dirge to play | on the world's smallest violin for them. | seydor wrote: | it's not even their fault. societies, cities have been | built to produce this kind of people | krapp wrote: | It isn't anyone's fault but the capitalist class. Still, | real life holds no sympathy for people who consider any | work beneath their dignity. | | They'll be depressed? Tough shit, we're _all_ depressed. | But I hear there 's dignity and self respect in a | lifetime of backbreaking labor. Hard times create strong | men and whatnot. | jurassic wrote: | No, there are not. Everything in the economy is connected and | you can't have a vibrant industry without customers. The | customers of hospitality/entertainment/healthcare/etc | businesses are largely the middle class who will be put out | of work by LLMs. So the person who today makes $200/night in | tips waiting tables at a nice restaurant.... who will be | buying those meals? | woah wrote: | Someone who uses an LLM as a tool to perform a useful | service | seydor wrote: | That would be another LLM or a robot then | toss1 wrote: | The owner class gets enlightened and makes sure that the govt | taxes them and implements a solid Universal Basic Income | | This is part of what the original UBI concept was about. | | If this doesn't happen, yes, there will likely be violence | until it is fixed. | | The other view is that many technologies that were supposed to | reduce work actually net added work, because now more | sophisticated tasks could be done by the humans, so the net was | similar to the highway paradox where more and wider highways | breed more traffic by induced demand. | | Where would this demand come from? IDK, but at least initially, | these LLMs make such massive errors that keeping a lid on the | now-hyper-industrial-scale bullshit[0] spewed by these machines | will make many more full time jobs. | | Seriously, just today I was amazed at how the GPT model tried | to not only BS me with completely fabricated author names for | an article that I had it summarize, but it repeatedly did so | even after being successively prompted more and more | specifically to where it could find the actual author (hint: | right after the byline starting with the word "Author". It just | keep apologizing and then doubling down on more fantastic lies, | as if it were very motivated to hide the truth (I know it's | not, that's just how fantablous it was). | | [0] Bullshit being defined as speech or writing telling a good | tale but with zero regard to the truth or falsehood of any part | of it -- with no malice but nonetheless a salad of truth and | lies. | djous wrote: | During my master's degree in data science, we had several | companies visit our faculty to recruit students. Not a single one | was a specialized NLP company, but many of them had NLP projects | going on. | | Most of those projects were the usual "solution looking for a | problem to solve". Even those projects that might have had _some_ | utility, would have been way more effective to buy/license a | product than to develop an in-house solution. Because really, | what's the use of throwing a dozen 25-30 years old with non- | specialized knowledge, when there are companies full of guys with | PhDs in NLP that devote all their resources to NLP? Yeah, you can | pipe together some python, but these kind of products will always | be subpar and more expensive long-term than just buying a proper | solution from a specialized company. | | To me it was pretty clear that those projects were just PR so | that c-levels could sell how they were preparing their company | for a digital world. Can't say I'm sorry for all the people | working on those non-issues though. From the attitude of | recruiters and employees, you'd think they were about to find a | cure for cancer. Honestly, I can't wait for GPT and other | productivity tools to wrech havock upon the tech labour market. | Some people in tech really need to be taken down a notch or two. | version_five wrote: | those projects were just PR so that c-levels could sell how | they were preparing their company for a digital world | | This is exactly it. The 2017-2019 corporate version of "invest | in AI" meant to build an in-house team to do ML experiments on | internal data, and then usually evolved a bit to get some "ml- | ops" thrown in so they could "deploy" the models they built. I | spent some time with a few companies doing this and it always | reminded my of "the cat in the hat comes back" when the cat let | all the little cats out of his hat and they went to work on the | snow spots... just doing busy work... | | Anyway it's a symptom of the hype cycle - AI was the next | electricity, but there were no actual products and nothing | clear to do with it, just hire a bunch of kids to act like they | were in a kaggle competition, or worse a bunch of PhDs to be | under-utilized building scikit-learn models. | | Now that there are (potentially) products coming along that at | least bypass the low-level layer of ML, having an internal team | makes no sense. Maybe the most logical thing that will happen | is the pendulum will swing too far, and this bubble will | consist more of businessy types using chatGPT without remotely | understanding it or realizing it's just a computer program. | DebtDeflation wrote: | >The 2017-2019 corporate version of "invest in AI" meant to | build an in-house team to do ML experiments on internal data, | and then usually evolved a bit to get some "ml-ops" thrown in | so they could "deploy" the models they built. | | You nailed it, although very few models actually ever got | deployed to Prod at Fortune 500 non-tech companies and the | few that did delivered little value. I'm a consultant and | most internal AI/ML/DS teams that I interacted with were just | running experiments on internal data as you said, and the | results would get pasted into Powerpoint, a narrative | created, and then presented to executives, who did little or | nothing with the "insights". Reminded me of the "Big Data" | boom a few years earlier where every company created a Big | Data Team who then promptly stood up a Hadoop cluster on | prem, ingested every log file they could find, and | then..................did nothing with it. | jazzyjackson wrote: | > having an internal team makes no sense. | | Disagree. I was on one of these R&D/prototyping teams running | ML experiments and you're right, it was the company wanting | to present itself as future-leaning, ready to adapt, and I | would say that at this point it was a good move to have | employees who understand where the tech is going. | | Companies with internal teams that are able to implement open | source models are in a much better negotiating position for | the B2B contracts they're looking at for integrating GPT into | their workflow, they won't _need_ GPT as much, if they can | fallback on their own models, and they will be better able to | sit down with the sales engineers and call bullshit when they | 're being sold snake oil. | visarga wrote: | You tend to oversimplify the GPT's - they don't just work all | the time, you got to test how well they work, then you got to | select the best prompt and demonstrations, then you got to | update your prompt it as new data comes along. There is | plenty of work parsing various inputs into a format it could | understand and then parsing its outputs, especially for | information extraction. | icedistilled wrote: | Counterpoint, if one doesn't have their own baseline model how | does one know the vendor is providing value. | | Yeah having a whole big team create the internal baseline is | not cost effective, but having at least one or two people work | on something to actually know the vendor is worth their cost is | important. | danaris wrote: | > Honestly, I can't wait for GPT and other productivity tools | to wrech havock upon the tech labour market. Some people in | tech really need to be taken down a notch or two. | | You have to remember that when these sorts of things happen, | the ones who get "taken down" in ways that actually affect | their lives are invariably the ones who already have the least. | The ones who "need" that takedown will be just fine, unless | they've made incredibly stupid investment decisions. | avmich wrote: | > the ones who get "taken down" in ways that actually affect | their lives are invariably the ones who already have the | least | | I'm not sure that was the case with personal computing in | 1980-s. What was the significant part of society which had | the least and got "taken down"? | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | Personal computing didn't automate too many things that | only humans could previously do. Personal computer enabled | you to move the data haystack from paper medium to digital | but you still had to know the right SW incantations and | meticulously dig through it to find the needle. | | ChatGPT and other ML apps can find you the needle in the | data haystack. To look up stuff on the PC you still needed | to know the location of your stuff, filesystem info and how | to formulate queries. You no longer need to learn to "speak | machine language" but finally the machines can now | understand human language to do what you tell them to do. | | Of course, ChatGPT & friends can also say dumb shit or just | hallucinate stuff up so you still need a human in the loop | to double-check everything. | osigurdson wrote: | >> "solution looking for a problem to solve" | | I wonder if this is a bad as everyone thinks. When a new | technology arrives which is not completely understood, isn't | the right approach to try to find some applications for it? | Sure, most will fail, but some valid use cases will likely | emerge. | | I'm pretty sure almost all technologies at some point were | solutions looking for a problem to solve. Examples include the | internet, the computer and math. | 72deluxe wrote: | The computer was always designed to be a computational | machine. It didn't just appear and then someone thought "what | could I actually use this for?" | | Also the Internet came out of DARPA which was a method of | sharing data between geographically remote military | facilities. It wasn't like they wired up devices and thought | "what could we use this for?". | osigurdson wrote: | Do you assert that we had a good understanding of all of | the problems that a computer could solve before making it? | This seems absurd to me. | karpierz wrote: | GPs point is that the technologies you've mentioned | solved real problems before they were adapted for | different use cases. They didn't make Darpanet and then | think "man, if only there was some use for this" until | the Internet came along. They designed it to send signals | between distant nodes while being resilient to individual | nodes being nuked. | | Only after DARPAnet solved that problem did it get | adapted to some other problems (ex: how do I send cat | pictures to people)? | Technotroll wrote: | R&D is fraught with risk, but some risks are more rewarding | than others. These companies don't just sit on useless | knowledge. Take Google who now sits as a "loser" in the | current AI "competition"; their projects are far from | worthless. Because they've built up expertise, they're now in | a very good position to overtake Microsoft on AI, even though | they currently seem a bit behind. (And frankly on many fields | they're already far ahead.) So OK, perhaps the behemoth that | is Google is a bad example, but I still think the same thing | is true for smaller companies. If you just read the news, you | would think that a technological race like this only has one | winner, but that just isn't true. Even quote unquote | "worthless projects" can help increase the understanding and | expertise in quite important areas, that while not "worth" | anything currently, may still have huge value in the future. | The only way to know, is to stay in the race. | JKCalhoun wrote: | > I wonder if this is a bad as everyone thinks. | | I think it is. If they actually do end up finding a problem | to solve, that would be serendipitous but I imagine the vast | majority of the time they find themselves in the business of | trying to convince the rest of us to buy a thing that we | don't need. And while the latter may drive the economy to | some degree as I get older I detest it more and more. | osigurdson wrote: | No one actually needs anything - perhaps food and water but | even survival is not strictly necessary. | | The problem with "stuff we don't need" arguments is they | are fundamentally nihilistic. | | Everyone needs a flying car so let's get on with it. | 72deluxe wrote: | This appears to be the computing model of the past 20 | years, from what I can tell? | | There have been no real advancements since the desktop | model of the late 1990s. We might have more animations and | applications running in virtual machines for security | purposes, but literally nothing new has come out. | | Even all the web apps are reimplementation of basic desktop | capabilities from the decades before, but slower and with | more RAM usage. They might be easier to write (I personally | don't think so - RAD apps from the 90s were quicker to | write and use) but the actual utility hasn't changed; if | anything it's just shoving all of your data from your | microcomputer to someone else's microcomputer, and being | tracked and losing control of said data whilst you're at | it! | | And we have easier access to videos on the Internet, I | guess?? | | It all seems to be missing the point of actually having a | computational device locally. There is no computation going | on. It's all digital paper pushing. | tracerbulletx wrote: | It might not be optimal if we knew the future but to me its | just a natural organic process, organizations and factions | inside of organizations are slime molds. A new value gradient | appears in the environment and we all spread out and crawl in | a million different out growths feeling blindly in the | general direction of something that feels like a good idea | until one of the tendrils hits actual value and becomes a | path of least resistance and the other ones dry out and die. | JohnFen wrote: | > I'm pretty sure almost all technologies at some point were | solutions looking for a problem to solve. Examples include | the internet, the computer and math. | | I think the opposite -- nearly all technologies came about as | a result of people trying to solve existing real problems. | Examples include the internet, the computer and math. | (Although I don't think "math" counts as a technology.) | | The internet came about from darpanet, which was solving the | problem of network resiliency. Computers automated what used | to be a human job ("computer") of doing very large amounts of | computations. That automation was solving the problem of | needing to do more computations than could be done with | armies of people. | echelon wrote: | > Honestly, I can't wait for GPT and other productivity tools | to wrech havock upon the tech labour market. Some people in | tech really need to be taken down a notch or two. | | That's an odd reason to want this. | MomoXenosaga wrote: | Less bullshit jobs. Society needs doctors, nurses, plumbers | and teachers not tech bros. | tomp wrote: | With this kind of mindset, we'd still be using lead pipes | and letting blood. | | Doctors and plumbers might make society work, but | technology drives society forward. | throwayyy479087 wrote: | Sure. But recruiting scheduling coordinators do not. | Those people would better serve society stringing up new | HVDC lines, which the current model does not incentivize. | siva7 wrote: | You do realise those tech "bros" are what enables doctors, | nurses, plumbers and teachers to have a better work-life? | themaninthedark wrote: | I am not sure I can agree. | | Doctors and nurses now spend more time entering data than | talking to patients. | | Teachers now spend more time entering grades into online | systems and fielding messages from parents. | | Not sure how tech is helping or hurting plumbers except | for the standard GPS tracking that bosses use to follow | them around. | laserlight wrote: | AI or technology won't reduce bullshit jobs. To the | contrary, they might increase bullshit jobs, because there | would be more resources to allocate for those jobs. | harimau777 wrote: | Two problems: Who is going to pay to retrain people for | those jobs? | | Except for perhaps doctors (and even then residency is BS) | all of those jobs are treated or paid like crap. | tpoacher wrote: | take it from me; "doc bros" are far, _far_ worse. | JKCalhoun wrote: | I agree with your sentiment but disagree that AI research | is in any way the domain of tech bros. | | I'm starting to see the term "tech bros" appear more and | more in HN - before hand I more frequently saw it outside | of this site. | | Some people on HN I have seen really come down on those | that use the term. I don't. | | Perhaps those of us in the industry ought to recognize that | the term exists because of a growing resentment among | people outside of the tech industry. | | Your comment hints too as to why that is. | [deleted] | meany wrote: | It's evidence of resentment, but not of well reasoned | discourse against something the tech industry is doing. | Characterizations like this anthropomorphize a group into | a single entity that is easier to hate and assign | intentions, too. It's not constructive to any | conversation that moves a discussion forward. A person | who is mad at "tech bros" is likely more upset about | systemic forces that they want to blame on a target. It's | logically equivalent to making sweeping statements | blaming immigrants for suppressed wages. | stonogo wrote: | Comparing affluent ivory-tower digital landlords to | vulnerable people being blamed for things outside their | control is definitely one of the decisions of all time. | It also seems like a lot of exercise just to feel | justified in discarding a large group of opinions. | | People start generalizing about groups like this when | they've stopped caring about negative policy consequences | which affect those groups. Politicians who blame wage | stagnation on immigrants do not expect to have those | immigrants who gain citizenship vote for them. Why do you | think people might have stopped caring what happens to | the group designated "tech bros"? | piva00 wrote: | Society definitely needs those, but the incentives of the | system most societies live under do not align to those | needs. We are 100% into a society of wants, not needs, and | the rewards are for those who sell stuff for these wants. | Our needs went into the "cost center" of society's | calculation, not an investment, and so it's been a race to | the bottom for those professions. | | While adtech, crypto and other bullshit gets massive | funding because it can turn a profit. | | The incentives to have a good society don't align with the | incentives of financial capitalism. | steponlego wrote: | Why start startup of any kind if there's a bigger company full | of people already competing in the same space? | twodave wrote: | Because product execution at SO many places sucks. LLMs won't | help with that, either. They'll just help people market their | crappy products more cheaply. Woe to the marketers, however. | api wrote: | It does seem like the (misnamed because it's not open) OpenAI is | very far ahead of most other efforts, especially at the edges in | areas like instruction training and output filtering. | | Playing with Llama 65G gave me a sense for what the median raw | effort is probably like. It seems to take a lot of work to fine | tune and harness these systems and get them reliably producing | useful output. | CuriouslyC wrote: | I don't think it's possible to build a moat around models at | all. The model architectures are public, and there are already | distributed group training projects so the compute isn't a | barrier. The only moat is data. | levidos wrote: | OpenAI stopped publishing the architecture of GPT-4, so I'm | worried that architecture availability will not be as | available in the futire | belter wrote: | A whole thread on AI experts discussing how AI is making them | obsolete...back to gardening... | izacus wrote: | This fad too shall pass. And the tech will end up where it | always does: helping some, changing some but nowhere near as | much as the gold rush profiteers would make you believe. | emptysongglass wrote: | This is not an event that calls for pithy adages. The fruits | of ML are not a fad just like personal computing was not a | fad. It's a watershed event that cuts across every knowledge | worker's domain. If you're not currently using these LLMs it | may not be obvious to you but those of us that have tried to | apply them to our current fields see huge gains in | productivity. Just in my own little slice of knowledge work, | I've seen yield increases that have saved me multiple days of | work on a single project. | | Everyone is going to feel this, most prominently people in | the sorts of industries that frequent HN. If you haven't yet, | you will or you will be forced to when you discover everyone | in your field is out-producing you armed with these tools. | izacus wrote: | Uh-huh. | | How's them NFTs and Blockchain doing the watershed world | changin these days? | macinjosh wrote: | Is the compute for running an LLM cheap enough to scale at the | moment? LLMs seem to be a great generalist solution but could | specifically targeted NLP solutions still outperform in terms of | speed/cost when you are processing high volumes of inputs? | davidkuennen wrote: | I tried translating something from English to German (my native | language) yesterday with ChatGPT4 and compared it to Microsoft | Translate, Google Translate and DeepL. | | My ranking: | | 1. ChatGPT4 - flawless translation. I was blown away | | 2. DeepL - very close, but one mistake | | 3. Google Translate - good translation, some mistakes | | 4. Microsoft Translate - bad translation, many mistakes | | I can understand the panic. | og_kalu wrote: | Tested these before GPT4 but 100%, Bi/Multi-lingual LLMs are | the key to solving Machine Translation. | | https://github.com/ogkalu2/Human-parity-on-machine-translati... | davidktr wrote: | Fellow German here. Funny thing about DeepL: It translates | "pathetisch" as "pathetic". For example: "Das war eine | pathetische Rede." -> "That was a pathetic speech." | | I guess we have to get used to software redefining the meaning | of words. It was kind of funny when that happened regarding | Google Maps / neighborhood names, but with LLMs it's a | different ballgame. | DangerousPie wrote: | Another German here, and I have to admit I would have | actually translated "pathetisch" as "pathetic" as well. I | guess my German vocabulary has suffered quite a bit over the | years of living abroad. | pohuing wrote: | Pathetic can mean emotional in English as well. Though I only | discovered that by reading the dictionary. | | For anyone who doesn't speak German, pathetisch means with | pathos, impassioned. | harimau777 wrote: | This strikes me as a good example of how nuanced language | can be. | | A native English speaker probably would only use "pathetic" | to mean "emotional" if the emotions were specifically | negative. They also would use pathetic to describe someone | experiencing non-emotional suffering such as injury or | poverty. | | Therefore, a native English speaker probably would not use | "pathetic" to mean "emotional" in everyday writing. | However, I could definitely see someone using it to mean | emotional when they were being more poetic. For example, I | could see someone calling an essay on the emotional toll of | counseling "The Pathetic Class" in order to imply that | social workers are a class that society has tasked with | confronting negative emotions. | pyuser583 wrote: | That's a definition you see as technical term in Ancient | Philosophy. Beyond literal translations from Greek, it | doesn't come up much. | sinuhe69 wrote: | I think we should not undervalue DeepL. Not only its default- | translation is already very good, it allows users to select | different alternatives and remember these preferences, too. | Which is not possible, at least not easy with GPT. | | And as with anything else, with the time it will get | improved, too. LLM is not the answer to all linguistic | problems. | davidkuennen wrote: | The most amazing thing about ChatGPT translation is, that you | can even instruct it how to translate. For example "dutzen" | and "sietzen" in German. I just simply tell it how it should | do it and it did. Absolutely amazing. It's like actually | working with a real translator. | siva7 wrote: | That's something i'm really sorry for but those jobs will | be likely the first to fade away, there is a whole | university faculty dedicated to the profession of the | language translator where i live. | yieldcrv wrote: | goodbye to teaching English in Asia! come on home ya'll! | epups wrote: | I'm actually not sure what will become of tools like DeepL. | Whatever edge they may have with dataset tuning and other | tricks under the hood are likely superseded by a better | architecture, which in turn requires a ton of capital to train. | By the time they come up with a GPT4 equivalent, we will be | using GPT5. | zirgs wrote: | Does it translate hate speech too? | macawfish wrote: | Of course it can | zirgs wrote: | ButI thought ChatGPT has guardrails that prevent it from | outputting hate speech, praising certain politicians and so | on. | groffee wrote: | [dead] | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | I'm not at a big tech company, and we don't sell algorithms, but | my team does use a lot of NLP stuff in internal algorithms. The | only panic I have is trying to keep up and take the time to learn | the new stuff. If anything, things like GPT-4 are going to make | my team 10x more successful without having to hire an army of | PhDs. | jarebear6expepj wrote: | The PhD army will rise up against us one day... as soon as they | are finish their TA appointments. | not-chatgpt wrote: | What does your team do? It feels like GPT4 can handle any task | out there. Only drawback is latency and cost. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | The price isn't even that bad, even the most expensive at | 6cents per 1k tokens, it won't cost me much. It's the context | size that's amazing. Gone are the days of only being able to | pass ~500 tokens into something like BERT. | gniv wrote: | I remember thinking about this when AlphaFold was announced. Did | it happen back then? Were there large shifts in | companies/universities that were doing folding research? | jhrmnn wrote: | I've been thinking about this. My current theory is that | molecular simulation is a much more heterogeneous activity than | language modeling. Language is always the same _kind_ of data. | Molecular simulations span orders of magnitude in space and | time and depending on that, data and even objectives have very | different form. AlphaFold is just one small piece in this | puzzle and it's very easy for a research project to incorporate | AlphaFold into an existing pipeline and shift its goal. | tippytippytango wrote: | Not even experts in the domain could see themselves being | replaced and pivot in time. What hope does an ordinary person | have in preparing for what's coming? Telling people to retrain | will not be an acceptable answer because no one can predict which | skills will be safe from AI in 5 years. | twa34532 wrote: | oh no?! | | so finally the tech sector is experiencing themselves what they | have done to other lines of professions for the past decades, | namely eradicting them (rightfully) with innovation? | | well same advice applies then: | | * embrace, move on and retrain for another profession * learn | empathy from the panic and hurt | credit_guy wrote: | They may panic, but they shouldn't. They can quickly pivot. GPT | programs can be used off the shelf, but they can also use custom | training. Every large org has a huge internal set of documents, | plus a large external set of documents relevant to its work | (research articles, media articles, domain relevant rules and | regulations). They can train a GPT bot to their particular | codebase. And that is now. Soon (I'd give it at most one year), | we'll be able to train GPT bots to videos. | | All this training does not happen by itself. | nr2x wrote: | 100%. Anybody with experience in distributed systems, | networking, or SRE knows the plumbing can be as challenging as | the "big idea". Training these models is a plumbing job. And | that's actually really hard to pull off. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Yeah this thread has been the motivation for me to sign up on | the wait list and cost out what it would take to try fine- | tuning their older models on our data. There's still plenty of | work out there when it comes to building a solution to a | problem. | hnbad wrote: | When I was studying Computational Linguistics I kept running into | the unspoken question: given that Google Translate already | exists, what is even the point of all of this? We were learning | all these ideas about how to model natural language and tag parts | of speech using linguistic theory so we could eventually discover | that utopian solution that would let us feed two language models | into a machine to make it perfectly translate a sentence from one | language into another. And here was Google Translate being "good | enough" for 80% of all use cases using a "dumb" statistic model | that didn't even have a coherent concept of what a language is. | | It's been close to two decades and I still wonder if that "pure" | approach has any chance of ever turning into something useful. | Except now it's not just language but "AI" in general: ChatGPT is | not an AGI, it's a model fed with prose that can generate | coherent responses for a given input. It doesn't always work out | right and it "hallucinates" (i.e. bullshits) more than we'd like | but it feels like this is a more economically viable shot at most | use cases for AGI than doing it "right" and attempting to create | an actual AGI. | | We didn't need to teach computers how language works in order to | get them to provide adequate translations. Maybe we also don't | need to teach them how the world works in order to get them to | provide answers about it. But it will always be a 80% solution | because it's an evolutionary dead end: it can't know things, we | have only figured out how to trick it into pretending that it | does. | dogcomplex wrote: | Ask a toddler how the world works and you'll get a very similar | response. It is entirely likely the 80%-of-human-intelligence | barrier is not a "dead end" but merely a temporary limitation | until these models are made to hone their understanding and | update over time (i.e. get feedback) instead of going for zero- | shot perfection. The GPT models incorporating video should | start developing this "memory" naturally as they incorporate | temporal coherence (time) into the model. | | The fact we got this far through brute force is just insanely | telling. This is a natural phenomena we're stumbling upon, not | something crafted by humans. | | Also - fun fact, the Facebook Llama model that fits on a | Raspberry Pi and is almost as good as GPT3? Also basically | brute force. They just trained it a lot longer and it shrunk | the model. Food for thought. | nl wrote: | > Computational Linguistics I kept running into the unspoken | question | | I've done a lot of work in NLP and the times when computational | linguistics has been useful is very rare. The only time I | shipped something to production that used it was a classifier | for documents that needed to evaluate them on a sentence by | sentence basis for possible compliance issues. Computational | linguistics was useful then because I could rewrite mulit- | clause sentences into simpler single clause sentences which the | classifier could get better accuracy on. | | > And here was Google Translate being "good enough" for 80% of | all use cases using a "dumb" statistic model that didn't even | have a coherent concept of what a language is. | | I assume you are aware if Frederick Jelinek quote "Every time I | fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes | up"?[1] | | That was in 1998. It's been pretty clear for a long time that | computational linguistics can provide some tools to help us | understand language but it is insufficiently reliable to use | for unconstrained tasks. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Jelinek | leroy-is-here wrote: | I personally think that humans easily apply structure to | language that doesn't really exist. In fact, we restructure our | languages daily, as individuals, when communicating verbally | and through text. We make up words and shorthands and | abbreviations and portmanteaus. But I think the brain simply | makes connections between words and things and the structure of | speaking those words is interpreted like audio or visuals in | our brains -- just patterns to be placed. | | Really, words, utterances by themselves, carry meaning. | Language is just a structure for _us_, so to speak, that we | agree on for ease of communication. I think this is why | probabilistic models do so well: the ideas we all have are | mostly similar, it really is about just mapping from one kind | of word to another, or kind of phrase to another. | | Feel free to respond, I'm most certainly out of my depth here. | esperent wrote: | Google translate works amazingly will on languages with a | similar grammar (or at least, it works so on European | languages, which I have the experience to judge). | | However, translation of more distant languages is pretty | terrible. Vietnamese to English is something I use Google | translate for everyday and it's a mess. I can usually guess | what the intended meaning was but if you're translating a | paragraph or more it won't even be able to translate the same | important subject words consistently throughout. Throw in any | kind of slang or abbreviations (which Vietnamese people use a | _lot_ when messaging each other) and it 's completely lost. | hnfong wrote: | I learnt some very basics of computational linguistics since it | was related to a side project. I kept wondering why people were | spending huge amounts of resources into tagging and labelling | corpora of thousands of words, while to me it seems that in | theory it should be possible to feed wikipedia (of a certain | language) into a program and have it spit out some | statistically correct rules about words and grammar. | | I guess the same intuition led to these new AI technologies... | sp332 wrote: | English Wikipedia is the largest. Wikipedia in other | languages would be less useful. | vkazanov wrote: | The secret is that there are no grammars in our brains. Rules | are statistical, not precise. Rules, idioms are fluid and... | statistical. | | We're a bit more specialised than these new models. But | that's it, really. | xp84 wrote: | ^ This. I think the more we internalize the fact that we're | _also_ basically LLMs, the more we 'll realize that there | likely isn't some hard barrier beyond which no AI can | climb. If you watch the things kids who are learning | language say, you'll see the same kinds of slip-ups that | belie the fact that they don't yet understand all the words | themselves, but nobody thinks that 2-year-olds aren't | people or thinks they will never learn to understand these | concepts. | hnbad wrote: | I think a huge part is that computational linguistics still | chases the idea of a universal language model, which may | simply not be possible. I haven't followed the science in | general linguistics but something feels off when most of the | information ends up being tagged onto nil particles (i.e. | parts of speech present neither in utterances nor written | language and not affecting intonation or otherwise being | detectable except by contrasting the structure with related | languages). | hnfong wrote: | In a sense the model _is_ universal. It 's just a 100GB | (give or take) neural network. | | And apparently (or so I heard, I think) feeding transformer | models training data of Language A could improve its | ability to understand Language B. So maybe there's | something truly universal in some sense. | tkgally wrote: | * * * | lisasays wrote: | _Given that Google Translate already exists, what is even the | point of all of this?_ | | Because for the other 20 percent it's plainly -not- good | enough. It can't even produce an acceptable business letter in | a resource-rich target language, for example. It just gets you | "a good chunk of the way there." | | And there's no evidence that either (1) throwing exponentially | more data at the problem with see matching gains in accuracy or | (2) this additional data will even be available. | jjoonathan wrote: | Yeah... Google Translate is still occasionally translating | good/item as "baby" on taobao. "Return Defective Baby" was | hilarious for a year or two, but that was ~8 years ago IIRC, | and now it just stands as a reminder that Google Translate | still has a considerable way to go. | JohnFen wrote: | Indeed. Google Translate is just barely useful. Whenever I | use it to translate to English, what I get is generally | poor. It's good enough to understand the gist of what the | original text said, but that's about it. Fortunately, most | of the time, understanding the gist is enough. | bippingchip wrote: | As one of the comments on reddit posts - it's not just big tech | companies, but also entire university teams which feel the | goalposts moving miles ahead all of a sudden. Imagine working on | your PhD on chat bots since start of 2022. Your entire PhD topic | might be irrelevant already... | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> Imagine working on your PhD on chat bots since start of | 2022. Your entire PhD topic might be irrelevant already..._ | | In fairness most PhD topics people work on these days, outside | of the select few top research universities in the world, are | obsolete before they begin. At least from what my friends in | the field tell me. | Yoric wrote: | Anecdata of one: I finished my PhD about 20 years ago in | programming language theory. I created something innovative | but not revolutionary. Given how slowly industry is catching | up on my domain, it will probably take another 20-30 years | before something similarly powerful makes it into an | industrial programming language. | | Counter-anecdata of one: On the other hand, one of the | research teams of which I've been a member after my PhD was | basically inventing Linux containers (in competition with | other teams). Industry caught up pretty quickly on that. | Still, academia arrived first. | | edit Rephrased to decrease pedantism. | nemaar wrote: | > something as powerful as what I created | | Could you give us more detail? It sounds intriguing. | Yoric wrote: | I developed a new static analysis (a type system, to be | precise) to guarantee statically that a | concurrent/distributed system could fail gracefully in | case of (D)DoS or other causes of resource exhaustion. | Other people in that field developed comparable tools to | statically guarantee algorithmic space or time complexity | of implementations (including the good use of | timeouts/resource sandboxes if necessary). Or type | system-level segregation between any number of layers of | classified/declassified information within a system. Or | type systems to guarantee that binary (byte)code produced | on a machine could find all its dependencies on another | machine. Or type systems to prove that an algorithm was | invariant with respect to all race conditions. Or to | guarantee that a non-blocking algorithm always | progresses. Or to detect deadlocks statically. etc. | | All these things have been available in academia for a | long time now. Even languages such as Rust or Scala, that | offer cutting edge (for the industry) type systems, are | mostly based on academic research from the 90s. | | For comparison, garbage-collectors were invented in the | 60s and were still considered novelties in the industry | in the early 2000s. | codethief wrote: | Is there a good resource (a review paper maybe?) to get | an overview over such programming language / type system | topics? | pyuser583 wrote: | Isn't that the sort of thing advisors are supposed to caution | against? | | And aren't PhDs supposed have a theoretical underpinning? | simonh wrote: | I'm not too worried about that. We don't actually understand | fully how LLMs function internally, so research on how language | works and how to process it is still useful in advancing our | understanding. It may not lead to products that can compete | with GPT, but PhDs aren't about commercialisation, they're | about advancing human knowledge. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > We don't actually understand fully | | A touch of understatement. | echelon wrote: | All these people don't understand how hireable and desirable | they are now. They need to get out of academia and plugged into | AI positions at tech companies and startups. | | Their value just went up tremendously, even if their PhD thesis | got cancelled. | | Easily millionaires waiting to happen. | | --- | | edit: Can't respond to child comment due to rate limit, so | editing instead. | | > That is not how it works at all. | | Speak for yourself. I'm hiring folks off 4chan, and they're | kicking ass with pytorch and can digest and author papers just | fine. | | People stopped caring about software engineering and data | science degrees in the late 2010's. | | People will stop caring about AI/ML PhDs as soon as the | challenge to hire talent hits - and it will hit this year. | goethes_kind wrote: | That is not how it works at all. You won't get hired if you | don't have the academic pedigree in the first place. That | means a completed Ph.D and good publications in good | journals. | Der_Einzige wrote: | Sorry, you don't need the Ph.D. publications at top 10 NLP | venues are enough | Yoric wrote: | Hired in academia? Sure. | | Hired in industry. That's the opposite. I've had a friend | who had to hide that they had a PhD to be hired... | goethes_kind wrote: | I guess we are living in two different universes. Any job | ad for an ML role or ML adjacent role says Ph.d required | or Ph.d preferable. Maybe it is also a matter of | location. I am in Germany. | | For a plain SWE role a Ph.d might be a disadvantage here | too, but for anything ML related it is mandatory from | what I can see. | visarga wrote: | In my hiring experience as an interviewer, 90% of | candidates with PhD or not will actually have mediocre | grasp on ML. It is a rare happy day when I get a good | candidate. We interview for months for one hire. I got to | interview candidates worldwide so I've seen people from | many countries. | nl wrote: | Was this hiring for ML positions? | | As someone who hired for this in general we'd use PhD (or | _maybe_ a Masters degree) as a filter by HR before I even | saw them. | | It's true that a PhD doesn't guarantee anything though. I | once interviewed a candidate with 2 PhDs who couldn't | explain the difference between regression and | classification (which was sort of our "ok lets calm your | nerves" question). | antegamisou wrote: | Yeah, you don't want to be anywhere near a place claiming | to hire HS graduates/4chan posters in disciplines | requiring advanced knowledge for successful product | development, unless, idk, they have demonstrated | mathematical talent through well-established media e.g. | math olympiads, thesis on some relevant discipline. | | Almost all the time, they're shitty startups, where | bankruptcy is a matter of time, run by overpromising- | underdelivering grifter CTOs pursuing a get-rich-quick | scheme using whatever is trendy right now -crypto, AI, | whatever has the most density on the frontpage-. | kelipso wrote: | Yeah true, I've had to work with too many fresh college | grads to not relate to this. People try to take some rare | case and generalize when that's really not applicable. | yawnxyz wrote: | As much as I'd wish to say "you're wrong, people care about | intelligent, passionate people who do great work, not PhDs" | you're right about much of the work out there. | | We've tried many time to work with CSIRO (the NSF of | Australia) and it's fallen flat. They love impressive | resumes and nothing else. I'm having a chat with their | "Director of ML" who's never heard of the words "word2vec" | or "pytorch" before. (And I'm a UX designer!) | | I think at most corporate firms you'll end up running into | more resume stuffers than people who actually know how to | use ML tools. | Technotroll wrote: | Sorry, that's patently untrue. Perhaps it's anecdotal, but | I know a host of undergrads who got head hunted into quite | elite tech positions either directly from Uni where I | studied, or due to private projects they were in. And I | even know a few that doesn't even have any uni edu that got | hired to very high technical positions. Usually they were | nerdy types who had worked with or had exposure to large | systems for whatever reason, or who showed some promise due | to previous work, demos or programs they'd made. But sure, | most people have to go the edu route. It's the safest way | into tech, as you are - at least in principle - fully | vetted before you apply. Thinking that you can get a data | science or hacker job just by installing Kali is ofc also | very untrue. | goethes_kind wrote: | I think my post is more representative of the truth than | yours. I am sure you are telling the truth, but these | unique talents you are talking about are not | representative of the bulk of people working in research. | echelon wrote: | (My posting rate limit went away) | | The demand for AI/ML will fast outstrip available talent. | We'll be pulling students right out of undergrad if they | can pass an interview. | | I'm hiring folks off Reddit and 4chan that show an | ability to futz with PyTorch and read papers. | | Also, from your sibling comment: | | > Maybe it is also a matter of location. I am in Germany. | | Huge factor. US cares about getting work done and little | else. Titles are honestly more trouble than they're worth | and you sometimes see negative selection for them in | software engineering. I suspect this will bleed over into | AI/ML in ten years. | | Work and getting it done is what matters. If someone has | an aptitude for doing a task, it doesn't matter where it | came from. If they can get along with your team, do the | work, learn on the job and grow, bring them on. | goethes_kind wrote: | Thanks for the insight. I hope you are right of course. | Unfortunately, Germany is a bit hopeless in this respect. | levidos wrote: | I'm DevOps engineer and I became super interested in AI | recently. Any tips on how can I shift to an AI/ML career? | theGnuMe wrote: | Just as an fyi some of the top AI folks at OpenAI don't | have PhDs. I remember reading that on Twitter (I think). | goethes_kind wrote: | This is where it pays off to be researching something | completely esoteric rather than something immediately | applicable. I mostly scoffed at such research in the past, but | now I see the value of it. The guy researching QML algorithms | for NLP is not panicking yet, I think. | sgt101 wrote: | Perhaps - but normally you'll have a narrowly defined and very | specific technical topic/hypothesis that you're working on, and | many/most of these aren't going to be closed off by ChatGPT4 | | Will this effect the job market (both academic and commercial) | for these folks? It's very hard to say. Clearly lots of value | will be generated by the new generation of models. There will | be a lot of catchup and utilisation work where people will want | to have models in house and with specific features that the | hyperscale models don't have (for example constrained training | sets). I'm wondering how many commercial illustrators have had | their practices disrupted by Stable Diffusion? Will the same | dynamics (what ever they are) apply for the use of LLM's? | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > but normally you'll have a narrowly defined and very | specific technical topic/hypothesis that you're working on, | and many/most of these aren't going to be closed off by | ChatGPT4 | | Pretty hard disagree. Even if your NLP PhD topic is looking | at hypotheses on underlying processes about how languages | work (and LLMs can't give you this insight), 9 times out of | 10 it's with an eye for some sort of "applicability" of this | for the future. GPT-4 just cut off the applicability parts of | this for huge swaths of NLP research. | wunderland wrote: | Some big tech companies are witnessing a panic inside their | entire org because they focus almost entirely on their | competitors (except for the business divisions which are | monopolies). | KrugerDunnings wrote: | Some people look at ChatGPT and think its all over and other | look at it and start imagining all the things they can use it | for. | oars wrote: | If you were an NLP researcher at a university whose past years of | experience is facing existential threat due to this rapid | innovation causing your area to become obsolete, what would be | some good areas to pivot to or refocus on? | echelon wrote: | Get out of academia and into industry. | | Why the hell stay in in academia? This is clearly the next | technological wave, and you shouldn't sleep on it. Especially | when you're so well positioned to take advantage of your | experience. You can make $500,000/yr (maybe more with all the | new startups and options) and be on the bleeding edge. | | If you want to go back to academia later, you can comfortably | do so. Most don't, but that doesn't mean it isn't an option. | Beaver117 wrote: | $500,000 is not a lot after all the inflation we had. | | $100,000 in 1970 is worth almost $800,000 today. | | Yes, downvote me all you want. But if you're an NLP expert | thinking of working for a company that will make billions off | your work, you can and should demand millions at least. | matthewdgreen wrote: | If you go into industry you'll be given a chance to deploy | these models and rush them into products. You'll also make | good money. If you go into academia (or research, whether | it's in academia or industry) you'll be given the chance to | try to understand what they're doing. I can see the appeal of | making money and rushing products out. But it wouldn't even | begin to compete with my curiosity. Makes me wish I was | younger and could start my research career over. | | ETA: And though it may take longer, people who understand | these models will eventually be in possession of the most | valuable skill there is. Perhaps one of the last valuable | human skills, if things go a certain direction. | thwayunion wrote: | Do both. | | Getting your hands dirty is the best way to understand how | something works. Think about all the useless SE and PL work | that gets done by folks who never programmed for a living, | and how often faculty members in those fields with 10 yoe | in industry spend their first few years back in academia | just slamming ball after ball way out of the park. | | More importantly, $500K gross is $300K net. Times 5 is | $1.5, or time 10 is $3M. That's pretty good "fuck you" | money. On top which some industry street cred allows new | faculty to opt out of a lot of the ridiculous BS that | happens in academia. Seen this time and again. | | I think the easiest and best path for a fresh NLP phd grad | can do right now is find the highest paying industry | position, stick it out 5-10 years, then return as a profess | of practice and tear it up pre-tenure (or just say f u to | the tenure track because who needs tenure when you've got a | flush brokerage account?) | siva7 wrote: | This is as likely to happen as that someone will fully | understand how the brain works. I don't think you're | missing much out in academia | CuriouslyC wrote: | Plot twist: as these models increase in function, | complexity and size, behaviors given activations will be as | inscrutable to us as our behaviors are given gene and | neuron activations. | akavi wrote: | The danger is that the opportunity academia is giving you | is something more like "you'll be given the chance to try | to understand what they were doing 5 years ago". | tokai wrote: | NLP is nowhere near being solved. | mach1ne wrote: | Depending on definition, it is solved. | [deleted] | gattilorenz wrote: | You're using the _wrong_ definition, then. /s | | Where is some evidence that NLP is 'solved'? What does it | even mean? OpenAI itself acknowledges the fundamental | limitations of ChatGPT and the method of training it, but | apparently everybody is happily sweeping them under the | rug: | | "ChatGPT sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect | or nonsensical answers. Fixing this issue is challenging, | as: (1) during RL training, there's currently no source of | truth; (2) training the model to be more cautious causes it | to decline questions that it can answer correctly; and (3) | supervised training misleads the model because the ideal | answer depends on what the model knows, rather than what | the human demonstrator knows." (from | https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt ) | | Certainly ChatGPT/GPT-4 are impressive accomplishments, and | it doesn't mean they won't be useful, but we were pretty | sure in the past that we had "solved" AI or that we were | just about to crack it, just give it a few years... except | there's always a new rabbit hole to fall into waiting for | you. | gonzo41 wrote: | It'd be great if GPT could provide it's sources for the | text it generated. | | I've been asking it about lyrics from songs that I know | of, but where I can't find the original artist listed. I | was hoping chat gpt had consumed a stack of lyrics and I | could just ask it, "What song has this chorus or one | similar to X..." It didn't work. Instead it firmly stated | the wrong answer. And when I gave it time ranges it just | noped out of there. | | I think If I could ask it a question and it could go, | I've used these 20-100 sources directly to synthesize | this information, it'd be very helpful. | IanCal wrote: | Have you tried bing chat? That search & sourcing is | exactly what it does. | snowwrestler wrote: | Sure, but the sources list is generated by the same | system that generated the text, so it's equally subject | to hallucinations. Some examples in here: | | https://dkb.blog/p/bing-ai-cant-be-trusted | | To answer the question above, these systems cannot | provide sources because they don't work that way. Their | source for everything is, basically, everything. They are | trained on a huge corpus of text data and every output | depends on that entire training. | | They have no way to distinguish or differentiate which | piece of the training data was the "actual" or "true" | source of what they generated. It's like the old | questions "which drop caused the flood" or "which pebble | caused the landslide". | gonzo41 wrote: | Not yet, I'll try at work on my windows box. Thanks. | throwaway4aday wrote: | Is the goal of NLP for the model to actually understand | the language it is processing? By understand I mean | having the ability to relate the language to the real | world and reason about it the same way a human would. To | me, that goes far beyond NLP into true AI territory where | the "model" is at the least conscious of its environment | and possesses a true memory of past experiences. Maybe it | would not be consciously aware of its self but it would | be damn close. | | I think LLMs have essentially solved the natural language | processing problem but they have not solved reasoning or | logical abilities including mathematics. | gattilorenz wrote: | LLMs have (maybe/probably) solved the language modeling | problem, sure. That's hardly NLP, right? NLG is more than | "producing text with no semantics" and both NLG and NLU | are only part of NLP. | | ChatGPT cannot even reason reliably on what it knows and | doesn't know... it's the library of Babel, but every book | is written in excellent English. | chartpath wrote: | Even if that were true, LLMs don't give any kind of | "handles" on the semantics. You just get what you get and | have to hope it is tuned for your domain. This is 100% fine | for generic consumer-facing services where the training | data is representative, but for specialized and jargon- | filled domains where there has to be a very opinionated | interpretation of words, classical NLU is really the only | ethical choice IMHO. | nothrowaways wrote: | Only If you want to keep doing it the old lematization way. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-16 23:01 UTC)