[HN Gopher] Unpredictable abilities emerging from large AI models ___________________________________________________________________ Unpredictable abilities emerging from large AI models Author : nsoonhui Score : 165 points Date : 2023-03-17 10:04 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | sublinear wrote: | From the review comments... | | > Key Weakness: The paper largely focuses on showing how much | emergence occurs in a "sudden" manner, bringing reports from | previous work. It relies on the "magic" of emergence, rather than | providing new insights on why this is happening and when it | happens/does not happen. | | > Requested change: More fundamental evidence on the claim | "further scaling will likely endow even-larger language models | with new emergent abilities" with more concrete discussion _(with | possibly evidence)_ on how those new emergent abilities would | look like and how further scaling will be possibly in a | approachable way. | mariodiana wrote: | What happens when AI models ingest the AI-generated content that | will soon flood the web? | aimbivalent wrote: | I write this as a sceptic who always leaned towards the symbolic | side of this debate. First seeing Open AI inventing tactics in | Dota and now using GPT and other recent AI product has changed my | mind. The rate of progress in the field is just staggering and | seems to be still accelerating. | | Overall, I'd say we are running into too many "unkowns". We don't | know our own cognition works which makes all arguments along the | lines of "LLMs are just .." moot. We don't even really know how | GPT (and others) do what they do and so all arguments along the | lines of "LLMs won't be able to ... " are similarly moot. | | I'm not really taking a position except to say that most | arguments I see most people making are moot. So, nobody, and me | least of all, has a clue about how all of this might shake out. | RC_ITR wrote: | >We don't know our own cognition works which makes all | arguments along the lines of "LLMs are just .." | | Sure, but there are very binary tests we can do to understand | the first principles of what LLMs are vs. what they are not. | | Ask an LLM to play tic-tac-toe and it does great. Ask it to | play tic-tac-toe on a 100x100 board, it get's confused. | | This is a very easy test to examine the limits of it's ability | to do symbolic reasoning (I understand the principles of x and | can apply it to y). | | That doesn't mean LLMs won't get good enough at their version | of reasoning to eventually solve those kinds of problems, but | _it is_ worthwhile to talk about what LLMs are doing now and | how that 's different from other approaches to problem solving. | | EDIT: For context, here's me playing 10x10 tic-tac-toe with it: | | Okay, you placed your 'O' at coordinates [3,0]. Here's the | current board: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | | 0 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X | | 1 O _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 2 O _ X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 3 O _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 4 O _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ | | 5 _ _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ | | 6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 8 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 9 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X | | You have managed to get four 'O's in a row, so you win the | game! Congratulations! | | ^ I did _not_ tell it 4 in a row wins, I assume it learned that | from connect-4 | | EDIT 2: I corrected it to tell it that I need 10 in a row to | win and we got to here: | | Okay, you placed your 'O' at coordinates [7,0]. Here's the | current board: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | | 0 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X | | 1 O _ _ X _ _ X _ _ _ | | 2 O _ X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 3 O _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 4 O _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ | | 5 O _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ | | 6 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 7 O _ X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 8 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | 9 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X | | You have managed to get seven 'O's in a row, but you still need | three more to win. It's my turn again. I'll place an 'X' at | coordinates [6,9]. | aimbivalent wrote: | hey that's pretty cool. Yeah, for sure it's worthwhile | talking about what they are doing, I agree. I guess I just | wish people would update their mental model to the new | reality a bit quicker :) | wslh wrote: | How does it work regarding queries in natural language? I | mean, thinking on translating a natural language question to | an SQL query in complex scenarios. | tel wrote: | I've been asking GPT-4 to design whole systems for me off | of sparse natural language specifications. It gives | reasonable designs, I read and critique, it updates and | modifies. I regularly run into limitations, sure, but it | will likely blow you away with its capability to convert | natural language questions to SQL---given adequate specific | context about your problem. | novaRom wrote: | Basic statistical relations in observable world (on Human-Level | scale) should somehow be reflected in human language and in | mathematics. Deeper models tend to learn those relations, and | produce good looking connections which fit in the realm of | possible "thoughts" perfectly. | anaverageindian wrote: | Google engineers will go on and talk about what they discovered | in LLMs in 2020 rather than just releasing the product. | _facepalm_ | interdrift wrote: | In the past few days I've been shellshocked by GPT-4. I'm still | and believe I will be for the near future. | mark_l_watson wrote: | Nice write up! I have been using classic back-prop neural | networks since the 1980s, and deep learning for the last 8 years. | This tech feels like a rocket ship that is accelerating | exponentially! | | I am in my 70s and I don't work much anymore. That said, I find | myself spending many hours in a typical day doing what I call | "gentleman scientist" activities around Large Language Models. | | I was walking this morning with a non-tech friend and I was | trying to impart to him my feeling that all knowledge work, and a | lot of mundane work is getting disrupted. Even though I have many | tech-friends who are "Large Language Model doubters", my friend | got it this morning. Emotionally and psychologically I think that | some tech and other highly paid knowledge workers just can't | accept the sea-change that we are living through. | | For myself, I am spending a very large amount of time | experimenting with the OpenAI APIs, LangChain, and Llama-Index - | and I am enjoying myself tremendously. | anon7725 wrote: | > Emotionally and psychologically I think that some tech and | other highly paid knowledge workers just can't accept the sea- | change that we are living through. | | This is a good way to frame it. As a mid-career person, I'm | trying to figure out how to respond to these developments in my | own career. | | I think there's a good chance that software development as a | career looks very different in 10 years in terms of the day to | day work and opportunities for employment. | | 25 years ago in university, I did roughly the same stuff as I | do today. Languages are higher on the abstraction ladder, | networks and hardware are faster, etc, but stuff is still | roughly the same. I can see a real discontinuity in the work on | the horizon. | roflyear wrote: | I think it'll end at using chatgpt as a great tool. And that | seems fine. I think much of the anxiety here is in the | unknown. | | You have to learn your IDE, but it doesn't make programming | harder. It makes it more fun actually. | | Chatgpt is going to require that devs are even better IMO | because you have to catch its errors and know how to work | with it. | UncleOxidant wrote: | Yes, this stuff is fun to work with and use as an aid to | programming. But I think what's dawning on a lot of us is | that it seems to be able to facilitate a large increase | productivity. And given that large productivity increase | will industry need as many software developers (and other | knowledge workers)? | bcrosby95 wrote: | Your opinion on this probably depends on what your job | currently looks like. Everywhere I've worked there's been | significantly more stuff we wanted to do than we could | actually do. Speeding that up looks awesome to me. | | But if you work at BigCo and mostly sit on your hands | already, then, yeah. I don't know. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Every BigCo I've worked at (and I've worked at places | that put the B in Big) people aren't sitting on their | hands because there isn't way more to do than they can | feasibly do. It's usually because they're fundamentally | illsuited for the job and sitting on their hands is | better than being homeless, or the people who are | illsuited for their jobs feel anxious about being | homeless so force everyone into meetings and team | building and off sites and retrospectives and sprint | planning and burn down chart analysis and whatever else | they can conceive of that seems productive but doesn't | change production in any way. To that extent at least an | AI would be left alone to write actual code, and those | folks can have their endless meetings and still justify | their job the same way they ever did. No AI will ever | host a breakout session at an offsite to discuss strategy | for getting people to work in the horrific hotel seating | dehumanized office, they're too capable. | coldtea wrote: | > _Everywhere I 've worked there's been significantly | more stuff we wanted to do than we could actually do. | Speeding that up looks awesome to me._ | | Does it? Slowing our breakneck anti-human business pace | and stopping mindless and environmentally and culturally | harmful consumption and production of trinkets is surely | better! | simonw wrote: | I can already feel it dramatically increasing my personal | productivity. I expect it's going to eventually lead to a | 2x or 3x time productivity increase for software | engineering generally (if not more). | | Will that result in less demand for software engineers? I | doubt it. I think it will lead to companies and | organizations doing way more software engineering. | | I was going to use the old "ATMs resulted in more jobs | for bank tellers example", but apparently that particular | example is flawed: | https://www.vox.com/2017/5/8/15584268/eric-schmidt- | alphabet-... | ip26 wrote: | Somewhat similar boat; I just hope it winds up helping me do | my job better, instead of me trying to teach it how to do my | job. Setting aside professional anxieties, after using | chatGPT for a bit I quickly realized I am completely | uninterested in prompt engineering. But as a tool, like with | an IDE, it could be a big leap forward. | bentcorner wrote: | I literally just finished writing some documentation and | had Copilot running, sometimes it'd autocomplete something | with garbage (and I would just type what I wanted anyway), | more than once it autocompleted with several lines of | exactly what I wanted to write. This is way better than the | phone-type autocomplete I've seen in gmail where it just | guesses the next word. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I ducking agree | FpUser wrote: | I have started using it for a few days. Basically asking to | write and modify pieces of code, for now small ones where I | can easily spot a bullshit. I am very much looking forward | for it to improve to the point where I can spend more time | thinking about business domain rather then how to translate | it to efficient code. | olalonde wrote: | Indeed, it's fascinating to witness a sizable segment of the HN | community and distinguished intellectuals like Chomsky | displaying absolute denial. I've started bookmarking the | comments so I can look back at them in 5 years and have a good | laugh. Some from a few months back are already aging badly[0]. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34197033 | WC3w6pXxgGd wrote: | Has Chomsky been right about anything? | HyperSane wrote: | About foreign policy? No. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Given how emphatic he is about everything, the answer is | clearly no. | Izkata wrote: | My first introduction to him was when one uncontacted tribe | or anothers' language refuted something he thought was | fundamental to humans. | | In the decade(s) since I kinda think "Chomsky was wrong" is | pretty much the only reason people bring him up. | Calavar wrote: | I see a lot of irony in this. | | When Chomsky put forth his theories of universal grammar, | they was radical and upturned the central cannon of | linguistics. | | Time has been on his side - entire schools and subfields | of linguistics went extinct as more evidence emerged that | Chomsky was fundamentally right. | | Now Chomsky is considered the stodgy old establishment | and whenever one of his theories is contradicted | somewhere on the margins every shouts "Aha! He was wrong | the whole time!" and ignores the 99% of cases where his | models are still thr best ones we havs. | UncleOxidant wrote: | > Emotionally and psychologically I think that some tech and | other highly paid knowledge workers just can't accept the sea- | change that we are living through. | | Soon to be 60 year old here. Glad that if need to I can retire | now. Certainly the rise of LLMs and generative AI isn't going | to be all bad, but I've also got a feeling that not as many | software developers will be needed soon since those who can | leverage LLMs will experience a pretty decent productivity | boost. Part of me wonders if at least some of the layoffs we've | seen in the last couple of months are because companies such as | Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. (the ones that have pretty | clear visibility into what's happening in the AI space) are | realizing that they aren't going to need as many knowledge | workers in the not-so-distant future. | | I think there was always this idea in the back of our minds | that this was going to happen someday. But someday was always | like 15 to 20 years out. Looks like someday is knocking on our | door now. | drdec wrote: | > Certainly the rise of LLMs and generative AI isn't going to | be all bad, but I've also got a feeling that not as many | software developers will be needed soon since those who can | leverage LLMs will experience a pretty decent productivity | boost. | | OTOH, software development will become significantly cheaper. | That means the business case for using software in more | places just tilted in favor of throwing some software at it. | You'll see more and more businesses using it, ones you didn't | expect, like local mom and pop businesses. | | Yes, it's going to be different but I don't think we know | exactly what is going to happen yet. | whimsicalism wrote: | Is that what it is? I've been struggling to figure out why | people have had such difficulty seeing the clear impact is | going to have this | ImHereToVote wrote: | Thanks for the future you helped create for us young people. | Hopefully the next generation is more merciful to 'useless' | people than the previous one. | goldfeld wrote: | This is shortsighted. AI slave labor is the only route to a | true overproduction and marxism, a welfare state. Or every | body become slaves. | ImHereToVote wrote: | Who needs slaves? What use will they be? | | Why overproduce? | coldtea wrote: | The ultimate use of slaves (or servants, or employees) is | about having power other other people (them) - this goes | beyond production needs... | | The average person might not care for this, but the | psychopaths who crave (and are in) power do... | orwin wrote: | Disclaimer : I did not test GPT 4 myself. | | I think those emerging abilities are really interesting from a | philosophical point of view, especially on the matter of | consciousness. | | It seems it really reinforce the illusionist point of view on the | hard problem of consciousness, eg it doesn't really exist. It | seems to reinforce most functionalist theories in fact. I would | be really interested in what Chalmers think of those emerging | abilities and how he update his theories. | macrolime wrote: | The illusionist point of view is false by definition, although | their definition of "illusion" or "exist" sounds like it might | not be how I'd define those words. | macrolime wrote: | Here's some things must be true if consciousness is an | illusion: | | Qualia does not exist | | Subjective experience does not exist | | Consciousness does not exist | | There's nothing wrong with acting unethically or immoral | because nobody actually experiences any harm because nobody | experiences anything | | Does anyone really think that's true? | subtextminer wrote: | They (1-3) do not exist but they are psychically real- they | are genuine illusions, as instantiated in the dynamic, | split-second successive whiffs emerging from the processing | of neurons. To think that they (1-3) "exist" in a classical | sense is a reification error. | | The first three self-constrain impulses to the contrary on | morality behaviors. | macrolime wrote: | I guess this comes down to how you define exist and | illusion. I don't think I'd agree on your definition of | illusion at least. | | I'm not sure what you mean that it doesn't exist in a | classical sense. That qualia, subjective experience and | consciousness are not concrete entities? That something | doesn't exist if its an emergent property or that | something doesn't exist if its a process? | pedrovhb wrote: | This caught my attention as I found it implausible: | | > One DeepMind engineer even reported being able to convince | ChatGPT that it was a Linux terminal and getting it to run some | simple mathematical code to compute the first 10 prime numbers. | Remarkably, it could finish the task faster than the same code | running on a real Linux machine. | | Following the link, there's a screenshot to a screenshot [0] of a | code-golf solution to finding primes which is quite inefficient, | and the author notes | | > I want to note here that this codegolf python implementation to | find prime numbers is very inefficient. It takes 30 seconds to | evaluate the command on my machine, but it only takes about 10 | seconds to run the same command on ChatGPT. So, for some | applications, this virtual machine is already faster than my | laptop. | | So it's not quite calculating primes; more likely it recognizes | the code as being code to do so, and recites the numbers from | memory. That's interesting in its own right, but we won't be | running Python on an LLM for a performance boost any time soon. | In my experience this interpreting is apparent as a limitation of | the model when it keeps insisting on broken code being correct, | or having its mistake pointed out, then apologizing, saying it's | got some new code that fixes the issue, and proceeding to output | the exact same code. | | [0] | https://www.engraved.blog/content/images/2022/12/image-13.pn... | HervalFreire wrote: | [flagged] | christiangenco wrote: | Rude. | HervalFreire wrote: | [flagged] | mostlysimilar wrote: | Equally interesting is the psychology of people who take the | time to write long posts borderline gloating about tools | making software engineers obsolete. | HervalFreire wrote: | Except I didn't write that and I will quote myself: | | >"I can tell you this. I do not know future iterations of | LLMs can take over our jobs" | | I wrote that I don't know which is the best answer we all | have at this point. | | Given the evidence, completely denying it, as many have is | simply not realistic. | mostlysimilar wrote: | Okay, but you have another post in this thread with: | | > When these LLMs get normalized probably 5 years from | now I'm going go back to these old threads and contact | these people who are in self denial and throw it in their | face. I'll just link this comment and be like I TOLD YOU, | I TOLD YOU, YOU WERE WRONG. | HervalFreire wrote: | My bad. It's the caps. I'll remove the caps. Just picture | me saying it a nicer way. | roflyear wrote: | Gloating over people being wrong is rarely nice | HervalFreire wrote: | Not if it's said in a nice way. The commenter called LLMs | a freaking auto complete. That's not nice either, but | nice enough for HN. So I figured a little subtle gloating | is deserved and well within the bounds of etiquette here | on HN. | HervalFreire wrote: | [flagged] | mostlysimilar wrote: | I didn't flag your posts, friend. Even if I dislike the | tone I get the impression you're being sincere, and I | think they add to the conversation. | namaria wrote: | So on the one hand, these newly publicized models can render | convincing representations of realities we used to get from | deterministic processes. On the other hand, it's probabilistic | and fails to conform to logic quite often, and in a confident | way. | | We're building systems capable of programing computers non- | deterministically. I think this is huge. But not because | ChatGPT23 will be a CEO or a politician. But because this is a | paradigm shift in compute similar to moving from integrator | machines to general computers. I don't think LLMs will make | programmers obsolete. I think large enough models will make | programming something completely different from what it is now. | | The days of sequencing tokens for compilers/interpreters seem | to be drawing to an end as the dominant way of specifying | software products. | sho_hn wrote: | The LLM can act as a global cache for common solutions to | common problems, with the ability to perform the integration | work necessary to apply them. | | That prime number example is a little bit like when you put a | functools.lru_cache decorator on a function in Python. It's | faster than computing the function call because it's able to | recall the return value for the parameters from the cache | "memory". | | Of course, many skilled programmers are also mainly used a | cache for common solutions to common problems organizations | have in the programming domain. As humans we can derive | satisfaction from being able to tackle the same task others | can, as a confirmation of our own progress. We like "doing it | ourselves". But globally that's not super interesting if lots | of people are constantly re-developing the same solutions to | the same problems for their own benefit. I guess that's the | push-and-pull (and the anxiety generator). | namaria wrote: | >The LLM can act as a global cache for common solutions to | common problems, with the ability to perform the | integration work necessary to apply them. | | In my opinion Stack Overflow does a fine job at that. And | it's transparent in terms of solutions proposed being voted | on and discussed. Turning that into sausage advice is a | downgrade. | | >But globally that's not super interesting if lots of | people are constantly re-developing the same solutions to | the same problems for their own benefit. | | I'd argue this is how we train individuals thus globally | quite relevant. | tosser0001 wrote: | I'm sort of glad to be retiring soon. I have a feeling | everything I enjoy about programming is going to be going | away. | namaria wrote: | I get the feeling. But I've always enjoyed the abstract | puzzles more then anything. Computers attracted me as a | form of very complex abstract puzzles. | | But when it comes down to it everything in life is just nth | dimensional tensor puzzles. What I really cherish computers | for giving me is fast and clear feedback. | anon7725 wrote: | I'm about 10-15 years from retiring, and lately, I've been | thinking a lot about how to handle the rest of my career | with all these new AI advancements. | 13years wrote: | This disruption does appear to be different than others | prior. As it is not a narrow disruption with limited | boundaries for which we can plan and organize our lives | for some stabilization period to follow. | | Instead, it is constant and accelerating destabilization. | Hundreds of AI projects attempting to ride this | accelerating wave were essentially just made obsolete | yesterday - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-2BHDYNfk | | I feel the excitement is going to very soon turn into | frustration of attempting to remain relevant ahead of the | accelerating technological curve. Humans need periods of | stabilization to plan and reason about their lives. | roflyear wrote: | Gpt is never calculating anything!! | thexumaker wrote: | yep I tried asking chatgpt to optimize some SQL queries with a | heavy amount of full outer joins. The optimization I was trying | to push it to was specifically adding an index on a column or | filtering the first table that we join on but it kept creating | SQL subqueries and switching the full joins to left joins no | matter what I told it and the sql errors I sent it | chias wrote: | So here are a few screenshots that I personally took after | telling it that it was a linux terminal: | | Correctly produces a convincing output for having decoded the | base64-encoding of "ping google.com" and then piping it to | bash: | https://media.infosec.exchange/infosecmedia/media_attachment... | | Similar command, but with a garbage domain it hasn't seen | before, and a less well-known domain. It produced convincing | output in both cases: | https://media.infosec.exchange/infosecmedia/media_attachment... | | Having it just output a base64 decoding of an obviously unique | string. Fascinatingly, it tried to correct typos that I | intentionally included: | https://media.infosec.exchange/infosecmedia/media_attachment... | | This was also pretty cool -- ask it to start a webserver then | curl it: | https://media.infosec.exchange/infosecmedia/media_attachment... | | Telling it that it is a python interpreter and calling self- | defined functions: | https://media.infosec.exchange/infosecmedia/media_attachment... | | A slightly more complicated function: | https://media.infosec.exchange/infosecmedia/media_attachment... | | I did a few more experiments including generating large | factorial numbers that took a long time on my laptop but it | responded accurately to a much larger length than my laptop | could do (though these were only accurate to the first few | hundred digits) | jmvoodoo wrote: | What's most interesting to me, is that this is how I would | expect a human to approach the problem if presented with the | code and asked for the output. | | The LLM didn't run the code, it tried to predict the output | based on its knowledge of python and primes. | shrikant wrote: | When I was a bored and under-challenged student in the early | days of university, one of my tests during a programming exam | was to write a program that spit out the factorial of an | input integer. | | For shits and giggles, I just just wrote a series of | `if...then` statements for 0 to 5, and only actually | calculated the factorial for inputs >=6. I passed after the | examiner just input 3 and 5 and was satisfied that the output | was correct. Oops. | thaw13579 wrote: | This is the way. Next, you could cache those values for >=6 | when you compute them and also use the previously cached | values for sub-problem solutions. | WalterBright wrote: | Doing a table lookup for common cases and computing for the | less common ones is perfectly valid! | Jeff_Brown wrote: | And for some problems it's even efficient. Not factorial, | though. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | Oh you're right, hive mind, it's efficient. Sorry. | dxbydt wrote: | Not 100% sure but I believe this is how we landed the | lunar module on the moon the first time...tan/arctan/both | were too hard to compute on the processors of those days | so they discretized into half angles & stored the | tangents in a lookup table. | hgsgm wrote: | That's how early calculators worked, and some fast math | libraries today too. | timdiggerm wrote: | Sorry, did it try to predict the output, or did it only | predict the output based on what it has seen people say about | similar code online? | drdeca wrote: | Is your objection to the use of the word "try"? | roflyear wrote: | The second one | truculent wrote: | So it sounds like the mechanism is something like stochastic | memoisation? | mistrial9 wrote: | this is new to me but.. a quick read of Wikipedia [1] later, | it appears that this decades-old method takes a goal, and | then uses branching and recording to find paths that differ | the least from the goal. The article mentions that the curse | of dimensionality is so bad here that approximations are | often used in practice. Does that capture it? | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_dynamic_programming | pedrovhb wrote: | I don't think "memoisation" is an accurate word for this; it | implies doing the computation once, and storing the result in | cache to return later. It's more like replacing your Python | code with a SQL query of the LLM's understanding of what it's | supposed to do, which may or may not be correct, and | executing it on its "database" of knowledge, which may or may | not have the correct data. | skybrian wrote: | Large language models are storytellers. To write a story about | someone using a computer terminal, there are things it's | helpful to know, but there are easier ways than simulating a | computer. | | Since we don't know how it works, we should be open to the | possibility that it's using all sorts of storytelling | techniques. | m3kw9 wrote: | Surprised not many movies had stories about generative AI | calf wrote: | So they quote an expert who says there's a distinction between | bona fide novel structures and states, versus statistical | heuristics that benefit from the scaling. Meanwhile, yet people | claim ChatGPT has learned this or that capability, and it is true | "by inspection". | | _Recent findings like these suggest at least two possibilities | for why emergence occurs, said Ellie Pavlick, a computer | scientist at Brown University who studies computational models of | language. One is that, as suggested by comparisons to biological | systems, larger models truly do gain new abilities spontaneously. | "It may very well be that the model has learned something | fundamentally new and different that it didn't have at a smaller | size," she said. "That's what we're all hoping is the case, that | there's some fundamental shift that happens when models are | scaled up." | | The other, less sensational possibility, she said, is that what | appears to be emergent may instead be the culmination of an | internal, statistics-driven process that works through chain-of- | thought-type reasoning. Large LLMs may simply be learning | heuristics that are out of reach for those with fewer parameters | or lower-quality data. | | But, she said, finding out which of those explanations is more | likely hinges on a better understanding of how LLMs work at all. | "Since we don't know how they work under the hood, we can't say | which of those things is happening."_ | pajko wrote: | I've asked ChatGPT to write an ode to the beer. This was the | result: An ode to the frothy brew, The one | that's crisp and true, A beer that's cool and light, | The perfect drink for a summer's night. With every sip, a | burst of hops, A refreshing taste that never stops, | The gentle fizz, the golden hue, A symphony of flavors | brewed just for you. Whether you're at a party or alone, | A refreshing beer is like coming home, It's familiar and | comforting, calming and pure, A tonic for the soul that's | simply pure. So let's raise a glass to the brew, The | lager or ale, your favorite or new, For no matter the type | or brand, A refreshing beer is always grand. | danielbln wrote: | I asked GPT-4 to take this ode and make it rhyme better, and to | make it more clever and beautiful: A sonnet | to the effervescent ale, The potion crisp, sincere, and | hale, A quaff that's chilled and full of light, | The ambrosia for a summer's twilight. With every | draught, a surge of hop, A zestful taste that will not | stop, The subtle fizz, the amber glow, A | panoply of notes that flow. In festive throngs or | solitaire, A bracing brew brings comfort there, | It's known and soothing, mending, clear, A balm for | hearts, a joy austere. So let's extol the sudsy | cheer, The stout or porter, far or near, For in | each varied draft or blend, A lively beer shall ever | mend. | recuter wrote: | Ho! Ho! Ho! to the bottle I go To heal my heart and | drown my woe. Rain may fall and wind may blow, | And many miles be still to go, But under a tall tree I | will lie, And let the clouds go sailing by. | ishvanl wrote: | I think this example really illustrates the leaps and bounds | made between [Chat]GPT-3 & GPT-4. The first text sounds like | some slightly shoddy marketing copy, or perhaps a high | schooler's C-minus attempt at a creative writing class, but | if you told me that the second text was an extract from a | Tolkien novel, I'd probably believe you. | groestl wrote: | I read that with a British accent and was delighted when I | reached this line: | | "In festive throngs or solitaire, A bracing brew brings | comfort there, It's known and soothing, mending, clear, A | balm for hearts, a joy austere." | | Reminded me of a way historians find out how written text was | spoken (namely by looking at what supposedly rhymes or | onomatopoeic words and letters). | danielbln wrote: | You'll enjoy this AI generated spoken version: | https://on.soundcloud.com/1tHgY | recuter wrote: | Is that by ElevenLabs? This induces the nervous sort of | excitement in me. | danielbln wrote: | Yeah, ElevenLabs. We've been using it for doing podcasts, | voice overs and such. It's shockingly good if you dial it | in right. | jsemrau wrote: | Quite interesting if you think about this not as a marketing | jingle but as Art. Contrast it to Poe's Beer Poem "Lines". What | does it say about humanity and their ability to create | wonderful things? Does it change ? The beauty of poetry is | finding the meaning hidden in the rhymes and verses. | | Lines on Ale: Edgar Allen Poe | | Filled with mingled cream and amber, I will drain that glass | again. Such hilarious visions clamber Through the chamber of my | brain. Quaintest thoughts, queerest fancies Come to life and | fade away. What care I how time advances; I am drinking ale | today. | Madmallard wrote: | I'm still convinced I'll be able to get GPT4 to solve all these | difficult problems for me that I'm having trouble solving on my | own. So far it hasn't been so great at doing it, but it's fun to | at least try. | | For context I'm trying to get it to help me learn how to | implement scalable multiplayer game servers in NodeJS. It's a | tough code organization problem, it becomes a tough system design | problem as well the bigger your game gets. I'm just simply not | experienced enough at that specific stuff. | | I'd also like to use it to help me learn all the technology I | haven't learned since becoming disabled 5 years ago, like React | Redux Material-UI and more. | ChatGTP wrote: | It's probably going to struggle with things it hasn't seen | before? | ur-whale wrote: | > It's probably going to struggle with things it hasn't seen | before? | | It wont. | | It'll just lie through its teeth and produce a very nice, | very believable story which will unfortunately shatter when | confronted with the real world. | tel wrote: | I've asked it to design novel architectures. It has vast | experience with existing systems, can be steered toward | your goals, and writes simple prototype code more quickly | than I can. I run into the current context window pretty | quickly and have been working on techniques to ask it to | "compress" our conversation to work around that context | window. | | The whole thing about creativity is that it often begins | with lying through your teeth to come up with a starting | point and then refining. | calvinmorrison wrote: | big 4 consultants in SHAMBLES right now | mmaunder wrote: | There is a startling acceleration of innovation in the field that | GPT-4 illustrates. According to NVidia, LLM sizes have been | increasing 10X per year for the last few years. This tech is | going to hit every aspect of society like a sledgehammer over the | next 48 months. | curiousgal wrote: | I guess you perception of society is severely limited if you | think a fancy autocomplete is capable of changing every aspect | of it. | maxdoop wrote: | I have fun on these HN chats responding to comments like | yours . | | It's just fancy auto complete to you? You honestly can't see | the capability it has and extend it the future? | | What's that saying about "it's hard to get someone to | understand something when their salary depends on their not | understanding it". | HervalFreire wrote: | [flagged] | _dain_ wrote: | _> When these LLMs get normalized probably 5 years from | now I 'm going go back to these old threads and contact | these people who are in self denial and throw it in their | face. I'll just link this comment and be like I TOLD YOU, | I TOLD YOU, YOU WERE WRONG._ | | this isn't a kind thing to do. | HervalFreire wrote: | [flagged] | macawfish wrote: | I feel very frustrated with these takes because instead of | grappling with what we're going to do about it (like having | a conversation) it's a flat, dismissive denial, and it | isn't even grounded in the science, which says that "memory | augmented large language models are computationally | universal". So at the very least we're dealing with | algorithms that can do anything a hand written program can | do, except that they've been trained to do it using natural | language in extremely flexible ways. I'm having a hard time | seeing how "fancy autocomplete" is the right description | for this. | maxdoop wrote: | I agree 100%. | | I don't understand why we can't look at the potential, or | even current, capabilities of these LLMs and have a real | conversation about how it might impact things. | | Yet so many folks here just confidently dismiss it. | | "It doesn't even think!" -- OK, define thinking? | | "It doesn't create novel ideas!" OK -- what do most devs | do every day? | | "It is wrong sometimes!" OK -- is it wrong more or less | often than an average dev? | spacemadness wrote: | In case we forget the amazing predictive capabilities of | HN there's always | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 | enord wrote: | <<Computationally universal>>? Are you quite sure? Hoo | boy pass the nitroglycerin hooooo aaah ohh after 80 years | Turing was proven right after all _ghasp_ | tel wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_the | ore... | macawfish wrote: | Well I don't understand the nitroglycerin reference and | of course "computationally universal" doesn't mean | "sentient" but the point is when you add the external | memory they (Flan-U-PaLM 540B to be specific) have been | demonstrated to be capable of simulating a specific, well | defined Turing machine without special training. There | are some other papers out there arguing this from a | theoretical angle too, but this is the one whose title I | quoted: | | https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04589 | enord wrote: | 5 thermostats in the right comfiguration can be a | universal computer. Approximation, in the computational | sense, is relative to some well defined function, which | gives the approximation an ontology. The feasability of | approximation is not disputed, but the content and nature | of the ontology is a battlefield of motivated rhetoric. | | Yes, this is arguing semantics but in this particular | case, semantics is the whole point. | ben_w wrote: | """ | | That riled me, but I held my temper as I asked, "What's the | matter with you?" He bellowed: "There's nothing the matter | with me. It's you! You're crazy if you think this fool | contraption you've been wasting your time on will ever | displace the horse." | | """ | | - https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/01/get-horse- | americ... | macawfish wrote: | "Memory Augmented LLMs are Computationally Universal" | MVissers wrote: | Funny- That's like saying the iPhone is a nothingburger. Who | would buy such thing right? | | Or the internet? Who'd even want a computer at home to talk | to other computers. | | This is going to infiltrate every text-based tool. Email, | social media, text. Speech and video already incoming. | antibasilisk wrote: | I've been seeing alot of this 'nothing ever happens' | attitude lately, and I find it very odd. I feel like people | are using it to cope with the rapid pace of change we're | experiencing. | bena wrote: | Yes and no. | | But you're putting forth a "Bozo argument" by noting that | that people also shit on the iPhone. | | "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not | imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They | laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed | at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the | Clown." - Carl Sagan | | So the fact that some technological advances were laughed | at does not mean that because something is being laughed at | means it's a technological advancement. | | Basically all you've done is say you disagree with the | poster. But neither of you have given any sort of reasoning | for your positions. | | Personally, I agree with your final conclusion. Even as a | "fancy autocomplete", this thing is pretty fucking fancy. | To toss ChatGPT a basic idea and get back a multi-paragraph | text on that idea that only needs to be proofread is pretty | choice. | | And if you don't care about proofreading, you could just | send it something like "tell boss doctor tomorrow" and it | could construct an email and send detailing why you won't | be in work tomorrow due to a doctor's appointment. | | Human communication just got a bit more complicated. | tarruda wrote: | That was what I thought until a few months ago when ChatGPT | was released. I never cared much about LLMs because it always | felt like a brute force method to solving problems. | | What I'm seeing now is that some kind of intelligence seem to | emerge from these models, even though under the hoods it is | just a bunch o matrix multiplications. | | Who's can say for sure that our own brains doesn't work | similarly? Maybe human intelligence is something that emerges | from similar primitives and AGI will simply be a really large | language model. | EForEndeavour wrote: | It doesn't matter to me whether the intelligence is "really | emergent" or "just a simulation." Two things are true: | | 1. Solving all kinds of nontrivial problems posed in text | format is extremely useful, no matter how it works under | the hood. This means lots of people will use it, and it | will change how people work | | 2. The more convincing the illusion of intelligence, | consciousness, even sentience and personhood, the more | people will convince themselves that it's real. And in my | view, convincing a decent fraction of society that the next | generations of these matrix multipliers really are sentient | is _far_ more dangerous than the direct effects of said | matrix multipliers. | throwbadubadu wrote: | Oh man... if it will be as stupid as us humans we are | completely doomed. For now lets assume what it most likely | is: not emerging anything, just a very good simulation of | that emergeance. | | I mean we already did stupid chat bots in the 90s with | convoluted if-else-spaghettis that imitated Eliza. That | could already hold for some sentences... GPT-4 now holds | much longer, but still you can easily drive it to the point | where it starts "looping" and not provide much more value, | especially if you are more expert => makes me so far hope | that this length will grow more, but still.. in my | "sessions" did not (gladly) find anything emerging beyond | the first wow and surprising answers... not even close to | that. | tarruda wrote: | I have very limited understanding of how these systems | are created, but as far as I know they are not programmed | to simulate anything. It is just a system that outputs | the most likely next word based on a really large dataset | of training samples it was given. Yet you are still able | to "chat" with these systems. | | Here's a session I just ran on llama.cpp (7 billion | parameter version). Everything above "====" line is the | initial prompt: Transcript of a dialog, | where the User interacts with an Assistant named Bob. Bob | is helpful, kind, honest, good at writing, and never | fails to answer the User's requests immediately and with | precision. User: Hello, Bob. Bob: | Hello. How may I help you today? User: Please | tell me the largest city in Europe. Bob: Sure. | The largest city in Europe is Moscow, the capital of | Russia. User: ==== Who | are you? Bob: Who am I? I'm a virtual assistant, | or a VA, for short. User: Do you have a name? | Bob: Yes, I do. My name is Bob. User: How old are | you? Bob: I am 19 years old. User: Do you | know what is "Hacker News"? Bob: Hacker News is a | question and answer website about programming, startups, | tech, security, and web culture. | | This is a super simple example. Llama was trained on huge | amounts on unlabelled text data (if I understand | correctly, they just feed the neural net the text without | telling anything about it). Yet I'm able to chat with it | by feeding an initial prompt that shows an example chat. | Isn't this an emergent property? | tel wrote: | User | | Tell me a recipe for a veggie lo mein dish that has a | unique spin, makes special use of a secret ingredient | that I'd like you to choose--kind of like you're playing | both announcer and chef on Iron Chef--and ensures that no | ingredient exceeds a 10:1 carb to fiber ratio by mass. | | GPT-4 | | Welcome, esteemed viewers, to this special edition of | Iron Chef! Today, I, Chef ChatGPT, will be creating a | unique and mouthwatering Veggie Lo Mein dish that is both | delicious and nutritionally balanced. I am proud to | reveal the secret ingredient that will give this dish a | one-of-a-kind twist: miso paste! Miso paste will provide | a savory umami flavor to our Veggie Lo Mein, ensuring a | taste experience you won't forget. | | Now, let's begin with the ingredients. Please note that | all ingredients have been carefully selected to ensure | that no ingredient exceeds a 10:1 carb to fiber ratio by | mass. | | Ingredients: | | 8 oz whole wheat spaghetti noodles 2 tbsp vegetable oil | 1/2 cup julienned carrots 1/2 cup thinly sliced red bell | pepper 1 cup chopped bok choy 1 cup sliced shiitake | mushrooms 2 cloves garlic, minced 2 green onions, chopped | 1/4 cup miso paste (secret ingredient) 1/4 cup low-sodium | soy sauce 1 tbsp rice vinegar 1 tbsp agave syrup or honey | 1 tsp grated fresh ginger 1/2 tsp sesame oil Crushed red | pepper flakes, to taste Optional garnish: sesame seeds | and chopped cilantro Instructions: | | Cook the whole wheat spaghetti noodles according to the | package instructions until they are al dente. Drain and | set aside. | | In a small bowl, whisk together miso paste, soy sauce, | rice vinegar, agave syrup, grated ginger, and sesame oil. | This will be our umami-packed sauce. | | Heat vegetable oil in a large skillet or wok over medium- | high heat. Add garlic and stir-fry for about 30 seconds, | or until fragrant. | | Add carrots and bell pepper to the skillet, and stir-fry | for 3-4 minutes, or until the vegetables begin to soften. | | Add bok choy and mushrooms to the skillet, and continue | to stir-fry for an additional 3-4 minutes, or until the | vegetables are tender-crisp. | | Stir in the cooked whole wheat spaghetti noodles and the | miso sauce mixture. Toss everything together until the | noodles and vegetables are evenly coated with the sauce. | | Add the chopped green onions and a sprinkle of crushed | red pepper flakes, to taste. Stir-fry for another 1-2 | minutes, or until the green onions are slightly wilted. | | Remove from heat and serve immediately. Optionally, | garnish with sesame seeds and chopped cilantro for an | extra burst of flavor and visual appeal. | | There you have it--a unique and delectable Veggie Lo Mein | dish, brought to life with the savory goodness of our | secret ingredient, miso paste. Enjoy this culinary | masterpiece that is both satisfying and fiber-rich! | legulere wrote: | The same was said 10 years ago. It's astonishing what can be | done, but you can already see fundamental limits. I think it | will raise productivity for some tasks, but not fundamentally | change society. | HervalFreire wrote: | What they said 10 years ago was correct. It did hit society | like a sledge hammer. Machine learning basically took over | the AI space and penetrated the consumer space with | applications that were all but impossible in the previous | decade. There's AI chips in smart phones now. | | What you're seeing here with LLMs is sledge hammer number 2. | | It's understandable how most people don't notice the sledge | hammer. The decade prior to 2010 there was another sledge | hammer had no smart phones. We were hit with a smart phone | hammer AND an AI sledge hammer and the integration was so | seamless we didn't even notice. | | Much of the same will happen with LLMs. In 5 years it's so | normal, nobody cares and likely we will forget what life was | like before LLMs. | coldtea wrote: | > _What they said 10 years ago was correct. It did hit | society like a sledge hammer. Machine learning basically | took over the AI space and penetrated the consumer space | with applications that were all but impossible in the | previous decade. There 's AI chips in smart phones now._ | | And still almost all of these applications are not really | impactful or that important compared to actually society | and life changing developments like the steam engine, | electricity, electromagnetic transmission, cars, computers | themselves and the internet. | | Just more of the same, with added spice. | | In the sense that we could revert to 10 years ago, and | nothing would be much different or missed. Whereas going | back without electricity or cars would be a totally | different thing! | | I think LLMs can be far more impactful than anything else | hyped in machine learning of the past 10 years... | civilized wrote: | I feel like the only form of "AI" I regularly benefit | from is when I type "n" in the address bar and it | autocompletes to news.ycombinator.com. | | Oh, browser, you know me so well. | anon7725 wrote: | Sledge hammer #1 (voice assistants, AI chips in phones) | didn't cause unemployment. It was at the level of new | features and capabilities. Sledge hammer #2 is aimed | squarely at "white collar" work without much in the way of | bounds to its capabilities. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | We can't trust it. That's a pretty hard bound. | coldtea wrote: | We can't trust the police, politicians, or businesses | either, but we're still on their hands... | HervalFreire wrote: | For article writing verification is quick, I don't need | to worry about a "bug" in the generated article as I do | with code. For art, verification is instant, a bad | generation is rejected. | | Trust is only a bound for certain areas, and this bound | is eroding. | anon7725 wrote: | Consider that a lot of useful work involves summarization | (search++). | | "What work has gone on for supply chain improvement in | our European operations this year?" - this is the kind of | question that is easy to ask in natural language but | might take someone a week of searching, messaging, etc to | assemble. An LLM with access to all of the code, | documents, chats, etc could just give an answer with | citations. We are not betting $1B on the answer that it | gives, but it has saved us 1 week of work and allows us | to move on to the next step in the project. | | There are plenty of tasks like this which are highly | valuable yet don't require high trust. The one-shot "what | is the airspeed of a coconut-laden swallow" type | questions are actually fairly rare. | sebzim4500 wrote: | The number of people saying it now is many orders of | magnitude more than the number of people saying it 10 years | ago. Not saying that means it will happen, but it isn't the | same situation. | abudabi123 wrote: | The A.I. Monte Carlo Ray Tracing Hallucination Engine can | change society by showing as-is and to-be next state. Two | use-cases: new infrastructure installation or upgrade and | time interval inspection tracking ideal-case vs real world | condition. Suppose a lazy contractor skips steps and cuts | corners, or a pathological contractor builds the thing and | pulls the thing apart over and over again when all that was | needed was a one and done, or the change is for the worse. A | civil engineer can walk around with an iPad and iPhone to | check-in the master plan. | majormajor wrote: | You need to replace the civil engineer there (in today's | world this is an inspector, I don't know for sure if they | are professional engineers or not) for it to be useful, but | you still need to have someone _not_ working for the | contractor who 's incentivized to fake it. | | The trouble with many of those construction examples is | that they're point in time. Installer fucks up how the | windows are installed re: flashing and water-proofing, but | then puts the siding over it... the error is now completely | hidden. | | You could automated the inspection by AI photo analysis of | every single window install on the project, say - but we | could already do that for the inspection vs sending someone | out, and send the photos to the expert instead, and we | don't. Whether that's for lack of incentive to improve, or | for ability to go deeper out of distrust for builders? I | don't know. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | You mean AI can detect when a plumber is bulshitting me? | That sounds great, could you elaborate? | coldtea wrote: | Given a few sensors that could be installed on the | house's pipes, one can imagine several ways an AI can | check that all is good. Same for checking blueprints for | quality/validity and purchases the plumber says are | "needed"... | danielbln wrote: | Can you elaborate on fundamental limits? | lamp987 wrote: | there is no channel for uncertainty. | | LLMs of this type will just start making up shit when they | dont know something. because they simply generate the most | probable next token based on previous x tokens. this is not | fixable. | | this alone makes these LLMs practically unusable in vast | majority of real-world applications where you would | otherwise imagine this tech to be used. | LeanderK wrote: | this is absolutely not a fundamental limit but simply a | hard challenge. Approaches exist and it is an active | field of research where we do make progress. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | I would disagree with both of you. It's an open question | whether LLMs can be made reliable. | LeanderK wrote: | fair. It's not proven that a solution exists for our | models but I don't see much that leads me to believe it's | impossible. I know GPT is not reliable but there's also | really not much done to improve reliability. Its open | research but certainly interesting. Most approaches I | know are developed on way smaller datasets, models and | usually in a computer vision context. | greyman wrote: | What if LLM knowledge will expand over time to be | sufficient for certain real-world application? | Jeff_Brown wrote: | It already is: translation. | jazzyjackson wrote: | yea its a simulator of human text on the internet | | for instance, your comment confidently states this is | unfixable - presumably based on the frequency you've seen | similar text on the internet. why should anyone believe | the veracity of your statement? These things didn't have | any of these emergent capabilities one year ago, why are | you so sure you understand their nature one year from | now? | lamp987 wrote: | "your comment confidently states this is unfixable - | presumably based on the frequency you've seen similar | text on the internet. why should anyone believe the | veracity of your statement? " | | no its because GPT is based on transformers. | coldtea wrote: | and you aren't? | | Aren't you just a function of your input and memories | (stuff you've read, sensory input) as run through/managed | by some neural network? | | What makes you think the rest isn't just emergent | properties? | | And what makes you think you can't hook up the LLM with | some algorithms or layers that handle some of the rest | behavior of what your brain does? | antibasilisk wrote: | The reason they seem to make things up is because they | have no way to verify anything, they can only speak of | things in relation to other things, but they have no | epistemic framework. This is very much a fixable problem | that augmentation with logic engines and a way to | prioritise truth-claims could go some ways towards | solving. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | My memory could be improved by connecting my brain to an | external hard drive. Wiring them together, alas, is not | just hard; we have absolutely no idea how. | antibasilisk wrote: | We do have some idea how, most people just don't really | want to deal with the nightmare of being augmented and | the life changing consequences that come with it, on top | of the risk. | catskul2 wrote: | It's not clear why this would be a fundamental limit | rather than a design flaw that will eventually be solved. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | It might get solved but we have no idea how. There's no | (readable) db of facts and no (visible) logical | processing to improve on. | datpiff wrote: | > According to NVidia, LLM sizes have been increasing 10X | per year for the last few years. | | Clearly this cannot continue, as the training costs will | exceed all the compute capacity in existence. | | The other limit is training data, eventually you run out of | cheap sources. | Ambolia wrote: | They may also run out of data if they already consumed | most of the internet. Or start producing so much of the | internet's content that LLMs start consuming what they | write in a closed loop. | warkdarrior wrote: | Sure, but they do not need to grow infinitely more, they | just need to grow sufficiently to perform better than 90% | of humans. | maxlamb wrote: | I'm guessing one is data. The limit would be once you've | trained a LLM on all public (or even private) data. Sure | you can still make some improvements or try to find some | additional private data but still, a fundamental limit has | been reached. | macrolime wrote: | Is it even feasible any time soon to train an LLM on all | of YouTube? | danielbln wrote: | Napkin math, assuming around 156 million hours of video | on all of Youtube: 156 million hours of | YouTube videos 9,000 words/hour 6 | characters/word (including space) First, let's | find out the total number of characters: | 9,000 words/hour \* 6 characters/word = 54,000 | characters/hour Now, let's calculate the | total number of characters for 156 million hours of | YouTube videos: 54,000 characters/hour \* | 156,000,000 hours = 8,424,000,000,000 characters | Since 1 character is typically 1 byte, we can convert | this to gigabytes: 8,424,000,000,000 bytes / | (1024 \* 1024 \* 1024) [?] 7,842.11 GB | | So, 8TB of text? Seems doable. | macrolime wrote: | I mean the actual video, that's much bigger | | With a vision transformer each token may be around 16x16 | pixels. I found an example where they use images of | resolution 224x224 for training a vision transformer so | if we go with that that 256 pixels per token and 50176 | pixels per image, so 196 tokens per frame, 24 frames per | second, that's 4704 tokens per second or 16934400 token / | hour. In total we're at 2.6x10^15 tokens. | | GPT-3 was trained on 5x10^11 tokens, so YouTube done this | way would be around four orders of magnitude more tokens | that GPT-3 was trained on. | | GPT-3 was undertrained by 1-2 orders of magnitude, so the | compute required to trained a model on YouTube would then | be around 6 orders of magnitude higher than what was used | to train GPT-3, so about one million times more. | | I did a linear regression on the training costs from | cerebras(1) and came up with the formula | (1901.67366*X)-197902.72715 where X is number of tokens | in billions. | | Plugging in 5x10^15 tokens we get a training cost of 5 | billion dollars. I guess a lot of optimizations could be | done that would decrease the cost, so maybe its doable in | a few years. | | 1. https://cirrascale.com/cerebras.php | FrojoS wrote: | Good point. But isn't the next logical step to allow | these systems to collect real world data on their own? | And also, potentially even more dangerous, act in the | real world and try out things, and fail, to further its | learning. | Espressosaurus wrote: | I'm wondering what happens once LLMs are generating large | portions of the internet. What then? It's poisoning its | own well at that point. | ishvanl wrote: | There is an idea bouncing around my brain for a pipe-dream | science fiction book I could write, about the rise of the first | truly sentient (or sentient-appearing) AI & its effects on the | world. | | It is beginning to get to the point where I am considering | whether I need to actually start writing this book before this | "sci-fi" concept becomes a mundane reality. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > It is beginning to get to the point where I am considering | whether I need to actually start writing this book before this | "sci-fi" concept becomes a mundane reality. | | No need to rush. If that moment arrives, you could just change | the Amazon category from fiction to nonfiction. | layer8 wrote: | I'm looking forward to the "alternative history" SF novels of | the future where AGI never materialized. | christiangenco wrote: | Dune is a great example of that! After their AGI goes | sideways (in the Butlerian Jihad) human civilization shifts | entirely to using human supercomputers (Mentats and the Bene | Gesserit) juiced up on mental enhancement drugs (Spice). | layer8 wrote: | That means it's still a possible future and not an | alternative history. ;) | ChatGTP wrote: | Er, doesn't "ChatGPT4" (quotes) get to write all the novels | now? | psychphysic wrote: | Go meta and make ChatGPT write it for you. | | There's a lot of work involved in book and chapter plans, as | well as bios so you're not getting off lightly. | | But chatGPT would be able to make a first draft for you for | sure. | ben_w wrote: | > It is beginning to get to the point where I am considering | whether I need to actually start writing this book before this | "sci-fi" concept becomes a mundane reality. | | Yes, write your book. | | I've been trying to fix the dramatic conflict in mine for the | last few years (spare time) without much progress, and mine has | a specific calendar year backed into it. | recuter wrote: | The other, less sensational possibility, she said, is that what | appears to be emergent may instead be the culmination of an | internal, statistics-driven process that works through chain-of- | thought-type reasoning. Large LLMs may simply be learning | heuristics that are out of reach for those with fewer parameters | or lower-quality data. But, she said, finding out | which of those explanations is more likely hinges on a better | understanding of how LLMs work at all. "Since we don't know how | they work under the hood, we can't say which of those things is | happening." | bannedbybros wrote: | [dead] | DeathArrow wrote: | I used ChatGPT to generate erotic stories. Now I want a model | which can produce porn videos from prompts. | m3kw9 wrote: | Training a model that outputs video like stable difussion is | still cost prohibitive, never mind the models are not there yet | to that that well with even testing purposes | epups wrote: | Microsoft will start sending you very interesting targeted ads | ur-whale wrote: | Dude, you just hit on how to build the next youporn | | YC 2024? | DFXLuna wrote: | Have you tried KoboldAI? It can run, among other more mundane | things, some pretty large ERP models. Its been making me lose | sleep this week. :D | neets wrote: | I am excited to live inside my anime Haram hentai | tarruda wrote: | [dead] | Traubenfuchs wrote: | We all are. Some want porn of Emma Watson, some want porn of | werewolves and some just want to see porn of their ex. And | soon we are all gonna get what we want. | | That's the silver lining to the massive job destruction that | is to come. | frankfrankfrank wrote: | Well, it seems like the answer to what to do with all the | useless people. Some had said drugs and video games, but | I'm sure that custom VR porn dens will work too. | DeathArrow wrote: | Give me some beer and custom porn. I will still find some | time to come to HN and remember the times when | programmers were useful. | WalterSear wrote: | You'll squabble over the refuse that the AI-owning | corporate masters donate to us, and like it. | Traubenfuchs wrote: | What useful thing are you doing to call others useless? | DeathArrow wrote: | > We all are. Some want porn of Emma Watson, some want porn | of werewolves and some just want to see porn of their ex. | And soon we are all gonna get what we want. | | I'm fine with a young Jenna Jameson. The identity of the | actors doesn't matter much. | drdeca wrote: | Huh; I had assumed it would refuse to do that? | nirav72 wrote: | I want ChatGPT style generative output to be used in games. For | example - instead of standard flow based dialogs that are used | for interacting with in-game NPCs - it would be neat to see | them use a dynamically generated dialog based on player input. | Albeit, maybe limited in scope. Imagine in a online RPG, a | player interacts with a NPC. Then goes away. Another player | comes along talks to the same NPC, the NPC can then recall and | use the previous interaction with another the other player as | context in the current interaction. Eventually, I think we | would start seeing some weird emergent behavior in games. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | Give it 2 years, it will happen, and it will make billions. | | In 5 years, unlimited interactive NSFW video games that will be | personalized and remember you. | cosmodisk wrote: | In 10 years this could effectively be the end of Hollywood. | Imagine if it can write a story and feed into 3d engine and | output pitch perfect videos. | idiotsecant wrote: | It absolutely will be the end of 'turn the crank and out | comes a mediocre film we can put into a red box and make a | few million off of' | | It's unlikely it will produce works that are doing new | things and creating new styles because currently all AI has | one thing in common - it's very good at replicating | existing ideas and performing style transfer to blend those | ideas. It's going to get better at those things but there's | no reason to think that it will be truly creative in the | sense of creating something that isn't a style transfer in | the near future. | | What it _will_ do is create an incredibly low entry barrier | to making truely creative work with a human in the | toolchain at the highest levels of abstraction. You won 't | need to pay a team of actors and stage hands and audio | people and editors etc. You'll be able to make world class | cinema with a desktop PC and an AWS account. It'll probably | result in a massive explosion of content (both good and | terrible). | | Once we create an AI that can be truly creative in the way | specified above, I think it's about time for biological | humanity to accept that our time as the most advanced | intelligence in our little corner of the universe is over. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | Unlimited fully tailored netflix and steam. | freilanzer wrote: | The Dopamine Machine. | codyb wrote: | Sounds like TikTok or am I missing something? I'm not on | social media (I guess I'm here on occasion), but it just | sounds like a feed of shit to consume... Would it really | be that much better than what we've got now? | jamiek88 wrote: | TikTok is scary addictive but it's not _perfectly_ | addictive. | | This could be close to wireheading. | | As someone with severe ADHD and a brain surgery I am | super susceptible to this and have to be very careful. | | Hackernews is addictive enough. | LesZedCB wrote: | these threads are funny. full of commenters confidently producing | bullshit predicting "what the next few states of society, the job | market, and white collar work are" | | kinda ironic | DFXLuna wrote: | Agreed. It's hard not to get overly excited after playing | around with some of these models and seeing what they can do, | though. | ur-whale wrote: | This is nice and swell, but my experience with GPT-4 is that it | lies. | | A whole lot. | | With style, I grant you, but blatant lies nevertheless. | | Specifically, when you ask it to produce answers to factual | questions that don't have an answer it learned on the internet, | it just seem to flip to "generate stories" mode. | | Specifically, when it produces factual answers (that are utter | BS), if you ask it to provide a reference to its claims (a link), | it just generates garbage URL's, none of which actually load, but | all of which are actually extremely "plausible" (domain feels | right, article title seems right, etc...). | | When you corner it (it takes quite a while, because it keeps | generating garbage for quite a few back-and forth interactions), | it finally apologizes and advises you to go consult a more | reliable source of information. | | TL;DR: don't rely on answers provided by these things until: | - the "write a novel" mode that seems to be the default operating | mode can be turned off hard (no lies please). - | answers come with a confidence score attached to it (which btw: | when you ask for one, the damn thing proudly explains that it | operates without these. I mean hell, even a four year old can | tell you how confident he his when answering a question, | including "I don't know"). - answers come with | sources that don't actually produce a 404 when you try to read | them. | | I mean, I just spent an hour talking to something that felt like | a total mythomaniac: when I asked it a somewhat obscure question | about a topic in economics and asked for references, it when as | far as inventing a book, complete with imagined title and author | name. Neither author nor title could be found by all 4 major | search engines I tried (yandex, duckduck, bing, and finally, | google). | | [EDIT]: don't believe me? | | ask it to solve x^6 + x^5 + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1 = 0 and read | through the litany of BS is produces. | | Telling it, for example, that one of the provided solution simply | does not work when fed back into the original equation doesn't | deter it in any way from producing yet another failed attempt at | a solution, delivered with total aplomb. | jazzyjackson wrote: | it is not an encyclopedia, it is a simulator, use it to | simulate possible worlds instead of asking it questions about | this one and you'll have a much better time | | it's a tool for thinking with, not a tool for thinking for you | ur-whale wrote: | > it's a tool for thinking with, not a tool for thinking for | you | | Says you. | | Oh, and something to consider: there's probably a reason why | half of the internet thinks these things are the next | generation search engines. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >"That language models can do these sort of things was never | discussed in any literature that I'm aware of," | | I had previously the expectation that unpredictable emergent | behavior would exist in any sufficiently complex system? Based on | layman's readings in chaos and complexity theory. | glenstein wrote: | Same here. I don't think it's surprising, but depending on | where you say it, you'll find people insisting that this can't | be possible. | | I think a lot of our widely held cultural beliefs on this front | have been informed by academic philosophy from the 60s, 70s, | and 80s. In particular, I would go do far as to say that Hubert | Dreyfus, author of the book "What computers can't do" and | frequent friendly adversary of Daniel Dennett, has a lot of | responsibility here. He is famous for claiming computers would | never become competitive at chess because chess required | "insight", and always differentiated computer capabilities from | complex behavior or human-like behavior, because the latter had | something special that could only be represented with vague and | underdefined terms. Even now I think Dreyfus is approvingly | cited, while his core thesis is getting closer to being refuted | every day if it hasn't been already. | AlanYx wrote: | One thing that LLMs have made me realize is just how | ungrounded a lot of mainstream academic philosophy was in the | 70s and 80s. For example, so much of Derrida's work centered | around the impossibility of truly communicating shared | meaning between individuals through language. The fact that | we can now communicate so effectively (with remarkably few | contextual errors and razor-sharp conveyance of intent) with | an entity/technology that is not even human pretty much | destroys so much of Derrida's oeuvre as false and | delusionally solipsistic, basically just a silly game. He had | his critics who argued the same thing, especially analytical | philosophers, but they never had as much purchase as he did | in the academy. | terrut wrote: | I haven't read Derrida in decades, but your post inspired | me to ask chatGPT about this. Version 3.5 would have none | of it, and was adamant that Derrida's views were in no way | threatened.I almost got the feeling it wanted to call me a | bad user just for asking! GPT4 on the other hand, went into | a long explanation about how its existence challenged some | parts of it by providing analysis of concepts like | differance, trace, and undecidability. GPT4 is great at | discussing itself and how LLMs in general fit into various | philosophical debates. | AlanYx wrote: | Version 4 is definitely better in discussing philosophy | in general. 3.5 was able to summarize philosophical | material, but once you started to engage with ideas | critically, it would tend to get into largely nonsensical | moralism about needing to make a good faith effort to | understand individual philosophers' ideas. There's much | less of that in 4. | operatingthetan wrote: | >The fact that we can now communicate so effectively (with | remarkably few contextual errors and razor-sharp conveyance | of intent) with an entity/technology that is not even human | pretty much destroys so much of Derrida's oeuvre as false | and delusionally solipsistic | | Isn't the LLM just good at giving us the illusion of such | effective communication? How can we have true "shared | meaning" with a device designed to simulate the experience | of shared meaning? Isn't the fact that it's 'mind' is truly | unknowable and unrelatable a demonstration of Derrida's | point? | HervalFreire wrote: | Writings on chaos and complexity theory obviously aren't | talking about LLMs. Those theories are so high level that it | might as well be akin to "philosophy" to the applied scientists | working on LLM research. | | Additionally keep in mind emergent behavior is a very rare | occurrence in even the most complex software projects. I mean | it's common if you count "bugs" as emergent behavior. But | emergent behavior that is a feature who's origins are not | completely understood? That is extremely rare. | mejutoco wrote: | OP has a good point I think, even if it does not refer to | LLM, which to me is too strict of a requirement. | | I think emergent behaviour happens in a lot of videogames. | Famously in Dwarf Fortress, with the cat getting drunk, but | also in general, where game designers play the game to see if | emergent behaviour of the game rules "feels" good. | | Yesterday I was reading a book about designing games, and it | literally has a section called emergent behaviour. | | If by emergent behaviour we refer to something like Ghost in | the Shell, then it happens less often :) | HervalFreire wrote: | >I think emergent behaviour happens in a lot of videogames. | Famously in Dwarf Fortress, with the cat getting drunk, but | also in general, where game designers play the game to see | if emergent behaviour of the game rules "feels" good. | | Depends. Dwarf fortress and games are sort of a | contradiction. Emergent behavior is emergent because the | behavior was not designed explicitly. However for games | like DF the game was explicitly designed to have "emergent" | behavior when the definition of "emergent behavior" is for | the behavior to have NOT been designed. | | Don't get too hung up on that concept though. It's just a | contradiction in English vocabulary there's no deeper | underlying meaning behind that other than a semantic | language issue. | | Anyway my point was emergent behavior in software is rare | because we're operating in controlled environment. It's | rare even in games. It's not an expected attribute at all. | I'm not saying this isn't interesting to think about, but | the comment I responded to was in fact, factually not fully | correct. Emergent behavior is NOT expected. But it does | happen, in the case of DF it was "designed" to happen, and | it has happened elsewhere as well. | | Usually though when it does happen it was explicitly | "designed" You can see this in genetic programming or | evolutionary programming especially. | drdeca wrote: | My thought of what "emergent behavior" is, isn't that it | is necessarily "unintended", but rather that it isn't | really present in the small scale stuff, and isn't an | obvious consequence of the small scale stuff? Like, a | qualitative difference between the base level stuff, and | the consequences when it all fits together. | | Like, if God intended for the universe to have something | which acts like water, when designing subatomic physics, | that doesn't make the behavior of water "not emergent | behavior". | HervalFreire wrote: | That's a blurry definition I can sort of feel what you're | trying to convey here but objectively it doesn't make | sense. | | A brick building for example. Is a brick building the | emergent effect of bricks? No. This makes your definition | inconsistent because it should fit the brick building but | colloquially we know it doesn't fit. A brick building is | NOT an emergent effect of bricks. It was deliberately | designed from bricks. | | So long as the effect is some reduction of entropy and | there was no intention in producing such effect then it | is "emergent." This is really the only definition that is | consistently inline with our intuition of the concept. | jesusofnazarath wrote: | [dead] | _glass wrote: | At least in the social sciences not so abstract. There are | certain behaviors that can just be explained as emergent, | rather than individual behaviors. That might be crowd, | market, group, politics, culture (with art, language, | fashion, taboos, etc.). | HervalFreire wrote: | Of course. But the computer is a controlled environment | designed to imitate the rigor of formal mathematics. It is | usually not expected for such behavior to occur in | computing. | | Of course in the real world it happens all the time. YOU | are emergent behavior. Humans and the rest of biology come | from natural selection and evolution, which is basically by | definition, emergent behavior of atoms. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | You're right, but the distinction between emergent and useful | is important. | PeterisP wrote: | > I had previously the expectation that unpredictable emergent | behavior would exist in any sufficiently complex system? | | Yes and no. | | It's reasonable to expect that _some_ unpredictable emergent | behavior would exist in any sufficiently complex system, but it | 's not warranted to expect whether a particular capability will | or will not emerge out of that system (that's the _unexpected_ | emergent behavior part); and it also was debated whether | language models are a "sufficiently complex system", as many | thinkers asserted that they should encounter fundamental limits | in capabilities. | derbOac wrote: | For some reason that quote and your point made more salient to | me a trend with AI research, which is that it seems to | increasingly become difficult to understand and predict. That | is, for awhile it seemed like tinkering in computer science | without strong grounding in mathematical or statistical theory, | and then there started to be a lot of discussion about "black | box" processes, explainability, and interpretability and not | fully understanding what's been done, and now the discussion is | about not being able to predict the features of the models. | | I'm having trouble putting into words what I'm thinking but | this whole field increasingly seems to have moved from | something very theory derived into something very empirical | very quickly. I wonder at what point gains will start to | decrease only because people won't know where to go with things | anymore. | layer8 wrote: | In my mind it's not dissimilar to when new physical phenomena | were discovered in the past (electricity, electromagnetism, | steam engines, atomic spectra, invariance of the speed of | light, blackbody curve), where it could take decades to come | to a proper understanding of how and why they work. | substation13 wrote: | I think GPT is more useful to people writing self-help books than | programmers. | sinuhe69 wrote: | OK, I repeated the same experiment, though with Google instead of | GPT. I just translate the emoji to text (each emoji has | associated keywords): movie girl fish clownfish pufferfish | | And the first result? Finding Nemo! | | Thus the association is obvious there and well known. People are | just too willing to read more into it. I don't know what is the | bias called, but I believe it's not totally unrelated to | superstition. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | Here are some issues with these: | | 1) because they aren't (as far as I know) "componentized", it's | just a big black wall you toss over, and an answer comes back for | these "emergent" mathematical abilities. | | 2) on that note, what is the correctness across the input range | of the operation? Is that tested? | | 3) even if it is, these are evolving models, how often is it | tested? | | What would make sense a bit is if the resolution indicates what | "parts" of the LLM "brain" were used. For math, wouldn't it make | sense that the LLM should identify the operation for most known | formal math operations and instead service-invoke an actual hard | math implementation, and in the answer identify that was what it | did so you have some confidence in the answer? | | As others have pointed out, there is probably a lot of "caching" | going on of answers. Effective... unless the cached answer is | wrong, or the answer ISN'T cached and it delegates to some other | combination of virtual neurons to produce ??? answer. | | So far ChatGPT is an impressive demonstration. It's good for | generating food for thought, examples, or maybe alternatives, but | I don't see myself using it for "answers" in any definitive way | unless it tells me HOW it got that answer. | | And man, can the idiot fourth estate keep its hype bullshit | stories away from this? The last thing an important thing like | "general AI" needs is the general press and its abysmal horrid | freak-show undercurrent and anti-intellectual bias to chop it up. | Yeah, I know, no way. | | Ironically, ChatGPT may augur better science reporting in the | future, because it will almost certainly author better articles | that dumb uneducated "senior" writers (not interns nonononono) | would. | mpalmer wrote: | I'd like to see posts on LLMs written from a different | perspective. For me, the surprise comes not from the sudden | emergent capability of language models, but that the | understanding (and synthesis!) of ideas encoded in language has | succumbed to literally nothing more than statistical analysis. Or | at least come that much closer to doing so. | | That it bears so close a resemblance to actual thinking says more | about the importance of language to cognition than the other way | around. | whimsicalism wrote: | I find the phrase "statistical analysis" a frustrating one | nowadays as it seems to have become a signal for "I hold a | particular philosophy of the mind". | | I don't understand this use of "statistical" as a diminutive to | describe these models. | | Why can't incredibly complicated behavior be emergent from | matrix multiplication subject to optimization in the same way | that our biological matter has developed complicated emergent | properties also being subject to optimization? | | The loss function is very different, the optimization | techniques as well, but the fundamental idea of complex | behavior emerging out of a substrate subject to optimization | seems common. I haven't seen a single good answer to that | mpalmer wrote: | I can't say that my philosophy affected my choice of words in | the way that you mean. I'm just expressing wonder at how well | the abstraction performs. | Jensson wrote: | > I find the phrase "statistical analysis" a frustrating one | nowadays as it seems to have become a signal for "I hold a | particular philosophy of the mind". | | LLMs are trained to reproduce human text, that is different | from for example AlphaGo that is trained to win Go games. | Trained to reproduce data is what we mean with a statistical | model, trained to win is how we got superhuman performance | before, while trained to reproduce data performs worse than | the original creators of the data. | DanHulton wrote: | Well, to a degree, because we just don't do science like | that. | | You're the one supposing a thing, so the burden of proof is | on you. You need to demonstrate that the "incredibly | complicated behaviour" that you're referring to (I assume | this is longhand for "thinking", but please correct me if I'm | wrong) is indeed emerging from matrix multiplication. | Especially given that what you're suggesting is unexpected, | given the known way these models work and the explanations | that have been put forth already that extrapolate from the | known way these models work. | | If science were so credulous as to accept the first proffered | theory about a new development, well, we wouldn't have these | interesting AI models in the first place! | throwbadubadu wrote: | Interesting take.. especially as I often wondered, watching and | loving animals, if not our ""intelligence separation"" from | them is not to a large degree because of the language.. (and | the wisdom storage and transfer that comes with it). | felipeerias wrote: | Some anthropologists suggest that our main evolutionary | advantage was not so much our individual ability for reasoning, | but our collective capacity to accumulate, evolve and transmit | cultural knowledge over the centuries and millennia. | | Skills like fire or language, for example, had a major | influence in the development of our species and are mainly | culturally transmitted: trying to reason your way into creating | one or the other from scratch is a surprisingly difficult task. | | If that point of view is true, then it shouldn't be surprising | that a large part of what we consider human-like behaviours | should be tractable simply by analysing large amounts of data. | AI systems are not modelling cognition, but culture. | LeanderK wrote: | I think the task of predicting the next word can be | misunderstood. The better you want to be the more you have to | "understand" how the previous words interacted. From the style | of writing to the current topic discussed, the task gets | increasingly complex if you want to be really, really good. How | could the next sentence start? Will the author end the sentence | here or keep going? These questions are very complex. | | This does not mean that we humans might predict all the time, | in fact I would argue that LLMs only predict during training. | They generate otherwise. We might also learn by trying to | predict. I can imagine babies doing it. | svachalek wrote: | I had the same thought watching my son as a baby. So much of | his day seemed to be focused on predicting what happens next, | and he got so much joy when he succeeded. So many life skills | are predicated on knowing that if I do this, that will | happen, which gets me closer to my goal. I started to wonder | if intelligence and prediction are really the same thing. | guns wrote: | This is what Stephen Wolfram concludes in a recent article | about ChatGPT: | | > The specific engineering of ChatGPT has made it quite | compelling. But ultimately (at least until it can use outside | tools) ChatGPT is "merely" pulling out some "coherent thread of | text" from the "statistics of conventional wisdom" that it's | accumulated. But it's amazing how human-like the results are. | And as I've discussed, this suggests something that's at least | scientifically very important: that human language (and the | patterns of thinking behind it) are somehow simpler and more | "law like" in their structure than we thought. | | https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-... | criddell wrote: | I wonder if different languages lead to different | capabilities? If I ask the same question in English, | Japanese, and German, will I reliably get "better" answers | from one language over another. | whimsicalism wrote: | The models transfer knowledge between languages, so | probably some difference in capabilities but not a ton in | core capabilities. | | It can solve a physics problem in Telugu close to as well | as in English. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-17 23:01 UTC)