The fact that you refuse to engage with my points tells me otherwise.
You're drawing meaningless distinctions, anyone who has ever used Cyc will tell you that it makes massive mistakes and spits out incorrect information all the time.
But that is even true of humans, and every other system you can imagine. Facts aren't these magical things living in your brain, they're information with a high probability of accurately modeling reality.
When someone tells you x happened in y at time z. Then that only becomes a fact if the probability of the source being correct is high enough, that's it. 99% of all of your knowledge is only a fact to you because you extracted it from a source that your heuristics told you is trustworthy enough. There is never absolute certainty, it's all just probability.
Understanding comes in many forms. My uncle will not be able to model the fuel flow in his car's engine using the Navier–Stokes equations, yet he can still drive better than me. When it comes to LLMs, an understanding of the transformer architecture is wholly unnecessary to develop a good model of their capabilities and pitfalls. HN commenters tend to lack both a technical and abstract understanding of LLMs, while non-tech people tend to only lack the former.
At this point, I strongly urge you to think about what could possibly change your mind. Because if you can't think of anything, then that means that this opinion is not founded on reasoning.
The text LLMs produce is not just plausible in a "looks like human text" sense, as you'd very well know if you actually thought about it. When ChatGPT generates a fake library that looks correct, then the library must seem sensible to fool people. This can't be just a language trick anymore, it must have a similarity to the underlying structure of the problem space to look reasonable.
What's your definition of "correct" then? If a system is "accidentally correct" the majority of the time, when does it stop becoming "accidental"? You cannot trust any system in the way you want to define trust. No human, no computer, no thing in the universe is always correct. There is always a threshold.
I do research with LLMs all the time and I trust them, to a degree. Just like I trust any source and any human, to a degree. Just like I trust the output of any computer, to a degree. I don't need to verify everything they say, at all, in any way.
Genuine question, how do you think an LLM can generate "bullshit", exactly? How can it be that the system, when it doesn't know something, can output something that seems plausible? Can you explain to me how any system could do such a thing without a conception of reality and truth? Why wouldn't it just make something up that's completely removed from reality, and very obviously so, if it didn't have that?
Why do you feel the need to arbitrarily ascribe some ideology to random people based on one comment? I'm not "techno-utopian" in any sense of the word; I believe that the current AI development is highly risky and that we need to take careful measures such that society at large is prepared for the changes it may bring.
The "wide range of opinions" I see on HN are largely misinformed: they either lack the necessary technical understanding of current LLMs or are attempting to spin up some crackpot philosophical distinctions lacking in any rigor or consistency. I've never claimed that LLMs are perfect and I'd love to discuss their flaws! Believe it or not, that's why I continue to read these threads - to find genuinely informed takes contradicting my own.
Most people outside of tech tend to have no bias against or for LLMs, which gives them a leg up in finding consistent opinions about their capabilities. They tend to inform themselves with an open mind, which allows them to put things into context. Tech people have an immediate negative bias, because the implication of any system being able to write even a single line of code is an immediate intellectual threat. Therefore, things are interpreted maximally negatively.
For example, all of the talking points you mentioned are completely irrelevant unless interpreted with maximal negative bias:
- Text prediction is a general problem, being good at it requires understanding, reasoning and any other intellectual property you believe to be unique to humans.
- Every single system in existence is highly dependent on the data it uses to model the world, humans are no exception to this.
- The enormity of data required by any modern LLM is massively dwarfed by the enormity of data that was required by evolution and human civilization to get to this point.
- The energy requirements of modern LLMs are environmentally irrelevant when compared to literally any industry in either manufacturing, transportation or entertainment. We justify immensely more environmental damage for far less utility every single day.
After the giant media carousel last year, most people know what an LLM is, and the intuitive understanding they built from that reporting is way more accurate than what I have seen here. I have asked relatives and even acquaintances about just that. And as I have stated in my comment, their understanding is vastly better than that of HN.
No, the answers aren't just "plausible", they are correct the vast majority of the time. You can try this for yourself or look at any benchmark, leaderboard or even just listen to the millions of people using them every day. I fact check constantly when I use any LLM, and I can attest to you that I don't just believe that the answers I'm getting are correct, but that they actually are just that.
But they apparently actually don't get better even though every metric tells us they do, because they can't? How about making an actual argument? Why is correctness "not a property of LLMs"? Do you have a point here that I'm missing? Whether or not Kahneman thinks that there are two different systems of thinking in the human mind has absolutely no relevance here. Factualness isn't some magical circuit in the brain.
> No such thing can exist.
In the same way there can exist no piece of clothing, piece of tech, piece of furniture, book, toothpick or paperclip that is environmentally friendly; yes. In any common usage, "environmentally friendly" simply means reduced impact, which is absolutely possible with LLMs, as is demonstrated by bigger models being distilled into smaller more efficient ones.
Discussing the environmental impact of LLMs has always been silly, given that we regularly blow more CO2 into the atmosphere to produce and render the newest Avengers movie or to spend one week in some marginally more comfortable climate.
Are you going to spam this same link in every single thread about LLMs on HN? People have provided good arguments refuting whatever you're trying to say here, but you just keep posting the same thing while not engaging with anyone.
The point was that for many tasks, AI has similar failure rates compared to humans while being significantly cheaper. The ability for human error rates to be reduced by spending even more money just isn't all that relevant.
Even if you had to implement checks and balances for AI systems, you'd still come away having spent way less money.
Exactly, we need a much more granular approach to evaluating intelligence and generality. Our current conception of intelligence largely works because humans share evolutionary history and partake in the same 10+ years of standardized training. As such, many dimensions of our intelligence correlate quite a bit, and you can likely infer a person's "general" proficiency or education by checking only a subset of those dimensions. If someone can't do arithmetic then it's very unlikely that they'll be able to compute integrals.
LLMs don't share that property, though. Their distribution of proficiency over various dimensions and subfields is highly variable and only slightly correlated. Therefore, it makes no sense to infer the ability or inability to perform some magically global type of reasoning or generalization from just a subset of tasks, the way we do for humans.
There is a difference between poor reasoning and no reasoning. SOTA LLMs correctly answer a significant number of these questions correctly. The likelihood of doing so without reasoning is astronomically small.
Reasoning in general is not a binary or global property. You aren't surprised when high-schoolers don't, after having learned how to draw 2D shapes, immediately go on to draw 200D hypercubes.
I honestly don't think it is a matter of opinion, though. Her voice has a few very distinct characteristics, the most significant of which being the vocal fry / huskiness, that aren't present at all in either of the Sky models.
Asking for her vocal likeness is completely in line with just wanting the association with "Her" and the big PR hit that would come along with that. They developed voice models on two different occasions and hoped twice that Johannson would allow them to make that connection. Neither time did she accept, and neither time did they release a model that sounded like her. The two day run-up isn't suspicious either, because we're talking about a general audio2audio transformer here. They could likely fine-tune it (if even that is necessary) on her voice in hours.
I don't think we're going to see this going to court. OpenAI simply has nothing to gain by fighting it. It would likely sour their relation to a bunch of media big-wigs and cause them bad press for years to come. Why bother when they can simply disable Sky until the new voice mode releases, allowing them to generate a million variations of highly-expressive female voices?
That's not the purpose though, clearly. If anything, you could make the argument that they're trading in on the association to the movie "Her", that's it. Neither Sky nor the new voice model sound particularly like ScarJo, unless you want to imply that her identity rights extend over 40% of all female voice types. People made the association because her voice was used in a movie that features a highly emotive voice assistant reminiscent of GPT-4o, which sama and others joked about.
I mean, why not actually compare the voices before forming an opinion?
Apologies from me as well. I've been unnecessarily aggressive in my comments. Seeing very uninformed but smug takes on AI here over the last year has made me very wary of interactions like this, but you've been very calm in your replies and I should have been so as well.
You consistently refuse to take the necessary reasoning steps yourself. If your next reply also requires me to lead you every single millimeter to the conclusion you should have reached on your own, then I won't reply again.
First of all, it obviously changes everything. A shortsighted person requires prescription glasses, someone that is fundamentally unable to count is incurable from our perspective. LLMs could do all of these things if we either solve tokenization or simply adapt the tokenizer to relevant tasks. This is already being done for program code, it's just that aside from gotcha arguments, nobody really cares about letter counting that much.
Secondly, the analogy was meant to convey that the intelligence of a system is not at all related to the problems at its interface. No one would say that legally blind people are less insightful or intelligent, they just require you to transform input into representations accounting for their interface problems.
Thirdly, as I thought was obvious, the tokenizer is not a uniform blur. For example, a word like "count" could be tokenized as "c|ount" or " coun|t" (note the space) or ". count" depending on the surrounding context. Each of these versions will have tokens of different lengths, and associated different letter counts.
If you've been told that the cube had 10, 11 or 12 trillion constituent parts by various people depending on the random circumstances you've talked to them in, then you would absolutely start guessing through the common answers you've been given.
No, think about it. The granularity of the interface (the tokenizer) is the problem, the actual model could count just fine.
If the legally blind person never had had good vision or corrective instruments, had never been told that their vision is compromised and had no other avenue (like touch) to disambiguate and learn, then they would tell you the same thing ChatGPT told you. "The objects blur together" implies that there is already an understanding of the objects being separate present.
You can even see this in yourself. If you did not get an education in physics and were asked to describe of how many things a steel cube is made up, you wouldn't answer that you can't tell. You would just say one, because you don't even know that atoms are a thing.
You're drawing meaningless distinctions, anyone who has ever used Cyc will tell you that it makes massive mistakes and spits out incorrect information all the time.
But that is even true of humans, and every other system you can imagine. Facts aren't these magical things living in your brain, they're information with a high probability of accurately modeling reality.
When someone tells you x happened in y at time z. Then that only becomes a fact if the probability of the source being correct is high enough, that's it. 99% of all of your knowledge is only a fact to you because you extracted it from a source that your heuristics told you is trustworthy enough. There is never absolute certainty, it's all just probability.