| |
| ▲ | bee_rider 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One car went Mach 1, ever, apparently. Anyway, I don’t think the analogy fits. Ford or whoever didn’t loudly and frequently predict Mach 1 cars, right? The situation is more like: Altman & co are predicting their new car will replace all vehicles: horses, trains, planes, motorcycles, there’s a real possibility the concept of vehicles will not exist other than cars, in the future. Meanwhile it hasn’t really done highway speeds yet. It does some impressive runs on curated tracks, and people use it around their farms (it seems to work ok for some of them). We’ll see, I guess. | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, one car did Mach 1. And the first production car, the Benz Velo, could only go 12mph. It's an apt analogy. As I mentioned to OP, applying future aspirations to the current space is incorrect. Some people are able to understand the progression of industrial automation, some people aren't. But if you look at the current batch of frontier models and say, "I just don't see how this is going to be useful", then you're in the camp of those in the 80's who didn't understand personal computers, or in the 90's who didn't understand the web. In hindsight, the technologies evolved massively and found routine use cases that no one initially predicted. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think my main contention about the analogy is that Mach 1 cars are sort of a ridiculous target, a thing that only happened once just as an attempt to break a barrier, more like a tech demo. Billion dollar startups are very rare of course, but they are real things that happen for practical reasons as part of the industry. Saying that the person you replied to was looking for the former when they really wanted the latter seems uncharitable. Especially given that replacing most of the engineering department doesn’t seem to be too outside the scope of what some in the space are promising(?). | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Billion dollar one person startups are a silly target too, because as we approach that possibility, society will adjust. I know Sam Altman peddled this concept, but he's not representative of the culture and principles of the entire AI/ML space. So it was wrong of OP to attempt to use his words against the entire idea of neural models. |
|
| |
| ▲ | camillomiller 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is a terrible analogy that shows terrible thinking.
After all, there's one thing we can bet with more confidence on: delegating thinking to this mediocrity machines is affecting the ability to do the same in scores and scores of previously smart people. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Funny enough it is a great analogy if you think these modes will never really “get there” at scale. | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Terrible thinking? Delegating thinking to mediocrity machines? "Previously" smart people? I don't think you can project your own limited and malformed understanding of the world any harder. Please go touch grass and learn how to engage with others on the internet without being so negative. | | |
| ▲ | camillomiller 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Terrible thinking: yes, it's just bad thinking. It's a malformed comparison that misunderstands the conversation. Delegating thinking to mediocrity machines: Based on the statistical nature of their underlying math, LLMs are by definition mediocrity-producing machines, especially if you understand the etymology of mediocre. Previously smart people: Cognitive atrophy in people overrelying on LLMs and agents seems to be inevitable:
https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt... Maybe my understanding of the word is limited and malformed, or maybe you could try to develop one that takes into consideration the humanities, art, the sublime, love, emotions, and everything that makes humans human, instead of looking at the world through the small, mechanistic lens of the hyperengineerization of everything. | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's a malformed comparison that misunderstands the conversation I invite you to explain how, instead of just making unsubstantiated claims. > Based on the statistical nature of their underlying math, LLMs are by definition mediocrity-producing mac You're demonstrating a fundamental failure to understand the mathematics behind these models, by claiming that they produce an average result by nature. You fundamentally misunderstand reasoning manifolds, and how training teaches models new behaviors. Phrases like "Based on the statistical nature of their underlying math" sure make you sound smart to someone who doesn't know better, but in truth the phrase is completely void of substance: What statistical nature? What underlying math? What about them prove your naive hypothesis that they can only produce "mediocrity", itself an extremely subjective term that leaves you a massive amount of slack with which you can retreat from your claims after someone asks for proof and clarification. > Cognitive atrophy in people overrelying on LLMs and agents seems to be inevitable I can pull studies that show reading and writing reduce some cognitive faculties, compared to oral tradition. Or how the use of calculators atrophies basic arithmetic skills: that's not going to stop astrophysicists from using number-crunching simulations instead of doing things by hand. > maybe you could try to develop one that takes into consideration the humanities, art, the sublime, love, emotions, and everything that makes humans human, instead of looking at the world through the small, mechanistic lens of the hyperengineerization of everything. Hey, so you're projecting again here. Massively. Nothing about this conversation has given you any information regarding my opinions on the list of extremely subjective and debatable concepts you've provided. You seem to harbor a belief that anyone who extracts meaningful value from these machines is actually a "terrible thinker" who is inconsiderate of the world and only sees things through a "small, mechanistic lens". Besides being considerably insulting, all this projection does is reveal things about how you view the world, how you view those who think differently than you, and how close-minded you can be, prejudiciously writing off someone as a caricatured personal bias in order to avoid critically engaging with their argument. Honestly, this is a really sad and negative way to talk with others on the internet and you need to stop and review your approach to discourse. There is no value in considering to waste time talking to you until you change your attitude, so I'm going to end the conversation. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | camillomiller 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was literally quoting Sam Altman | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, you mentioned his discussion of the "billion dollar one person startup", which we can both agree is a fanciful idea and more of an eventual "possibility" that will of course not occur as once anyone can be a billionaire, the whole system is going to change. However, your "tasteless high level wanking" is not a quote from Altman, it's a vague and directionless insult that manages to sweep quite a lot of legitimate discussion about the future of automation and professional work under its thumb. It's wrong because you're saying, "where are the billion-dollar one-man startups?" in the same way that I might look at a Benz Velo and go, "But it's so slow! Horses can go faster than that! Everyone saying cars are going to change the fabric of society are just tasteless wankers!" The point is that you are applying future aspirations on the present-day relatively brand-new model space and getting upset that we aren't there yet. | | |
| ▲ | camillomiller 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The amount of brain energy spent on justifying the mediocrity machines is astounding. | | |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | What you just did is called deflection. You failed to address my comment wholesale and instead opted for a back-handed insult on my intelligence. Do you actually have something substantial to say? |
|
|
|
|
