this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
505 points (92.6% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
2689 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (23 children)

Oh surprise surprise, looks like generative AI isn't going to fulfill Silicon Valley and Hollywood studios' dream of replacing artist, writers, and programmers with computer to maximize value for the poor, poor shareholders. Oh no!

As I said here before, generative AIs are not universal solution to everything that has ever existed like they are hyped up to be, but neither are they useless. At the end of the day, they are ultimately tools. Complex, powerful, useful tools, but tools nonetheless. A good artist can create better work faster with the help of a diffusion model, the same way LLM code generation can help a good programmer finish their project faster and better. (I think). All of these AI models are trained on data from data from everyone on Internet, which is why I think its reasonable that everyone should have access to these generative AI models for the benefit of humanity and not profit, and not just those who took other people's work for free to trained the models. In other words, these generative AI models should belong to everyone.

And here lies my distaste for Sam Altman: OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit for the benefit of humanity, but at the first chance of money he immediately started venture capitalisting and put anything from GPT-2 onwards under locks and keys for money, and now it looks like that they are being crushed under the weight of their own operating costs while groups like Facebook and Stability catches up with actual open models, I will not be sad if "Open"AI fails.

(For as much crap as I give Zuck for the other awful things they do, I do admire their commitment to open source.)

I have to admit, playing with these generative models is pretty fun.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hm. I think you should zoom out a bit and try to recognize that AI isn't stagnant.

Voice recognition and translation programs to years before they were appropriate for real-world applications. AI is also going to require years before it's ready. But that time is coming. We haven't reached a 'ceiling' for AI's capabilities.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Breakthrough technological development usually can be described as a sigmoid function (s-shaped curve), while there is an exponential progress in the beginning, it usually hit a climax then slow down and plateau until the next breakthrough.

There are certain problem that are not possible to resolve with the current level of technology for which development progress has slowed to a crawl, such as level 5 autonomous driving (by the way, better public transport is a way less complex solution.), and I think we are hitting the limit of what far transformer based generative AI can do since training has become more and more expensive for smaller and smaller gains, whereas hallucination seems to be an inherent problem that is ultimately unfixable with the current level of technology.

[–] cyberpunk_sunbear 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One thing that I think makes AI a possibility to deviate from that S model is that it can be honed against itself to magnify improvements. The better it gets the better the next gen can get.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that is a studied, documented, surefire way to very quickly destroy your model. It just does not work that way. If you train an llm on the output of another llm (or itself) it will implode.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Also at best it's an refinement, not a new sigmoid. So are new hardware/software designs for even faster dot products or advancements in network topology within the current framework. T3 networks would be a new sigmoid but so far all we know is why our stuff fundamentally doesn't scale to the realm of AGI, and the wider industry (and even much of AI research going on in practice) absolutely doesn't care as there's still refinements to be had on the current sigmoid.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)