this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
19 points (85.2% liked)

technology

23313 readers
66 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know people here are very skeptical of AI in general, and there is definitely a lot of hype, but I think the progress in the last decade has been incredible.

Here are some quotes

“In my field of quantum physics, it gives significantly more detailed and coherent responses” than did the company’s last model, GPT-4o, says Mario Krenn, leader of the Artificial Scientist Lab at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light in Erlangen, Germany.

Strikingly, o1 has become the first large language model to beat PhD-level scholars on the hardest series of questions — the ‘diamond’ set — in a test called the Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark (GPQA)1. OpenAI says that its scholars scored just under 70% on GPQA Diamond, and o1 scored 78% overall, with a particularly high score of 93% in physics

OpenAI also tested o1 on a qualifying exam for the International Mathematics Olympiad. Its previous best model, GPT-4o, correctly solved only 13% of the problems, whereas o1 scored 83%.

Kyle Kabasares, a data scientist at the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute in Moffett Field, California, used o1 to replicate some coding from his PhD project that calculated the mass of black holes. “I was just in awe,” he says, noting that it took o1 about an hour to accomplish what took him many months.

Catherine Brownstein, a geneticist at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, says the hospital is currently testing several AI systems, including o1-preview, for applications such as connecting the dots between patient characteristics and genes for rare diseases. She says o1 “is more accurate and gives options I didn’t think were possible from a chatbot”.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Kyle Kabasares, a data scientist at the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute in Moffett Field, California, used o1 to replicate some coding from his PhD project that calculated the mass of black holes. “I was just in awe,” he says, noting that it took o1 about an hour to accomplish what took him many months.

Bro it was trained on your thesis

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago

This is dangerously close to "prompt: say 'I love you senpai'" and then suddenly feeling as if the treat printer really does love the computer toucher.

People will believe what they want to believe, and even a data scientist isn't immune to that impulse, especially when their job encourages it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I get it, but code isn't usually included in publications. Unless it was put on GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Physicist code tends to be pretty simple, particularly when it's just implementing some closed form solution. It is also possible that a model focused on parsing the math in papers - like equations in his thesis - would just reproduce this in Python or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

All of their models have consistently done pretty good on any sort of standard test, and then performed horribly in real use. Which makes sense, because if they can train it specifically to make something that looks like the answers to that test it will probably be good at making the answers to that, but it's still fundamentally just a language parser and predictor without knowledge or any sort of internal modeling.

Their entire approach is just so fundamentally lazy and grifty, burning massive amounts of energy on what is fundamentally a dumbshit approach to building AI. It's like trying to make a brain by just making the speech processing lobe bigger and bigger and expecting it'll eventually get so good at talking that the things it says will be intrinsically right instead of only looking like text.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

All of their models have consistently done pretty good on any sort of standard test, and then performed horribly in real use.

fuck maybe i am a chatbot

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh cool, they're using it in hospitals now desolate

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And the bio accuracy is 31% wrong...

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It pains me to say this is better than some of the physicians I've worked with.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

this is better than some of the physicians I've worked with.

Maybe, but how many forests do those physicians burn down and how many lakes do they turn to dust?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Too many. Though on a per-word basis, I'm sure they devastate orders of magnitude fewer forests and lakes than the plagiarism machines.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There is definitely a lot of hype.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say I have yet to see a single real world example where the AI does extraordinarily well and lives up to the hype. It's always the same.

It's brilliant!*

*When it's spoonfed in a non real world situation. Your results may vary. Void were prohibited.

OpenAI also tested o1 on a qualifying exam for the International Mathematics Olympiad. Its previous best model, GPT-4o, correctly solved only 13% of the problems, whereas o1 scored 83%.

Ah, I read an article on the Mathematics Olympiad. The NYT agrees!...

Move Over, Mathematicians, Here Comes AlphaProof

A.I. is getting good at math — and might soon make a worthy collaborator for humans.

The problem - as always - is the US media is shit. Comments on that article by randos are better and far more informative than that PR-hype article pretending to be journalism.

Major problem with this article: competition math problems use a standardized collection of solution techniques, it is known in advance that a solution exists, and that the solution can be obtained by a prepared competitor within a few hours.

“Applying known solutions to problems of bounded complexity” is exactly what machines always do and doesn’t compete with the frontier in any discipline.

---

Note in the caption of the figure that the problem had to be translated into a formalized statement in AlphaGeometry's own language (presumably by people). This is often the hardest part of solving one of these problems.

AI tech bros keep promising the moon and the stars. But then their AI doesn't deliver so tech bros lie even more about everything to get more funding. But things don't pan out again. And the churn continues. Tech bros promise the moon and the stars...

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The Rube Goldbergian machine that burns forests and dries up lakes needs just a few more Rube Goldbergian layers to do... what we already had, more or less, but quicker and sloppier with more errors and more burned forests and dried up lakes.

I truly do believe that most of the loudest "AI" proselytizers are trying to convince everyone else, and perhaps themselves, that there's more to this than what's being presented, and just like in the cyberpunkerino treats, criticism, doubt, or even concern about the harm this technology has already done and will be doing on a larger scale is framed in a tiresome lazy "you are just Luddites afraid of the future" thought-terminating cliched way. soypoint-1 k-pain soypoint-2

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

Despite skepticism over whether nuclear fusion—which doesn’t emit greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide—will actually come to fruition in the next few years or decades, Gates said he remains optimistic. “Although their timeframes are further out, I think the role of fusion over time will be very, very critical,” he told The Verge.

gangster-spongebob don't worry climate folks, we will throw some dollars at nuclear fusion startups and they will make us beautiful clean energy for AI datacenters in just a few years, only a few more years of big fossil fuel use while we wait, promise

Oracle currently has 162 data centers in operation and under construction globally, Ellison told analysts during a recent earnings call, adding that he expects the company to eventually have 1,000 to 2,000 of these facilities. The company’s largest data center is 800 megawatts and will contain “acres” of Nvidia (NVDA)’s graphics processing units (GPUs) to train A.I. models, he said.

porky-happy I want football fields of gpus

Ellison described a dinner with Elon Musk and Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, where the Oracle head and Musk were “begging” Jensen for more A.I. chips. “Please take our money. No, take more of it. You’re not taking enough, we need you to take more of it,” recalled Ellison, who said the strategy worked.

NOOOOO give us more chips brooo

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

You have to admire the grift.

Shame it requires the energy use of entire countries and is a weapon for disciplining labor.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

It works 100% of the time 70% of the time now! While this is interesting and chain-of-thought reasoning is a creative way to get better at logic, this is inefficient and expensive to the point where hiring a person is certainly cheaper. I belive the API is only available to those who have already spent 1k on OpenAI subscriptions.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

Kyle Kabasares, a data scientist at the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute in Moffett Field, California, used o1 to replicate some coding from his PhD project that calculated the mass of black holes. “I was just in awe,” he says, noting that it took o1 about an hour to accomplish what took him many months.

yeah I'm gonna doubt that, or he didn't actually compile/run/test that code. like all LLMs it's amazing until you interact with it a bit and see how incredibly limited it is.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tried it for python coding involving PDFs, OCR, and text substitution. Did worse than GPT-4o (which also failed).

Gave up and told it so. At least, it was very apologetic.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I feel like a broken record saying this. But AI frequently does solve coding problems for me that would've taken hours. It can't solve everything, and can't handle large amounts, but it can be genuinely useful.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Same, but it has to be presented well. If you want it to work for you like a Junior Coding Assistant you need to talk to it like such; outline what you need, refine the prompt for caveats, and provide unique information for specialized use cases. I find it especially helpful for one off programming in languages I'm not familiar with or getting me past the mental block of a blank page.

Also, there's a lot of stuff being thrown at LLMs that really shouldn't be. It's not the be all end all of AI tech.

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

In my experience the main risks in coding are poor communication about what the thing is supposed to do and why and then translating this into a clear specification that everyone understands and can push forward on. Rarely is it about chugging away at a problem, which is mostly about typing speed and familiarity with dev tooling.

What kinds of things has it saved time on? It has only caused headaches for those around me. At best they get something that is 90% what they asked for but they then need to spend just as much time finding the 10%.

The most praise I've seen is for writing a bunch of tests, but to me this is actually the main way you defend a specification, that most important step I mentioned above. It's where you get to say, "this captures what this stupid thing is supposed to do and what the expected edge cases look like". That's where things should be most bespoke!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Diagnosing networking issues, short bash/python scripts of any and all purposes, gdb debugging, finding and learning how to use appropriate libraries, are most of my use cases. It's not a one-and-done either, I often have to ask it to explain, or fix a broken aspect, or Google the documentation and try again, etc.