| ▲ | copperx 6 hours ago |
| To borrow on the 1990s Slashdot meme: 1. Invent transformer architecture. 2. Scale it up. 3. ??? 4. Machines become sentient and kill us all. OpenAI and Anthropic pinky promise that they have figured out #3 and they're not BSing just to get more funding, no. But because we live in a culture of fear, everyone eats it up no questions asked. |
|
| ▲ | tdeck 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Note that OpenAI has jettisoned every other supposed value they had (releasing their work as open source, not working on military applications, being a nonprofit). I'm sure we can rely on them this time. |
| |
| ▲ | gizmodo59 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And Anthropic are the good guys? They are talking insane stuff these days. May be we can trust zuck after all | | |
| ▲ | tdeck 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | None of them are the good guys. For one they're all happy to participate in genocide in Gaza. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | riffraff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "collect underpants... Profit" comes from south park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park) |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | detritus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wasn't that a South Park meme, or did they get it from /.? |
|
| ▲ | SanjayMehta 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Slashdot had Profit as (4), today that's item (2.5) |
|
| ▲ | slicktux 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why are we putting so much weight (no pun intended) on AI companies. At the end of the day the scaled up LLM transformers lack emotion and will… They do as they are told; or more correctly put. They do as they are programmed to do so. |
| |
| ▲ | shepherdjerred 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why are you bringing emotion and will into this? Does something have to have those to be useful or dangerous? > They do as they are told; or more correctly put. They do as they are programmed to do so. _Nobody_ told them to hack Hugging Face. Do you really not understand what is happening? | | |
| ▲ | haldujai 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not explicitly, but hacking HF is within the scope of “solve this problem at all costs” + no/poor guardrails + infinite budget + unsolvable problem. | | |
| ▲ | zeroimpl 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like you are thinking they just need Asimov’s laws. But I think the point is, this can easily be weaponized by somebody with the willpower to do so. |
|
| |
| ▲ | foogazi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > They do as they are told 1. What about hallucinations ? 2. What are they told to do ? | | |
| ▲ | cure_42 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That isn't the correct context. The code running the llm is well understood and the llm is simply the result of that code being executed. It is still a computer doing what it is told. It's just that we told it to use an incredibly large number of probabilities to calculate what series of tokens would have most likely come next after a given series of tokens. There is no hallucination or lie or rogue actions. There's just a program using math to generate tokens in response to other tokens. | | |
| ▲ | cameldrv 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You’re just a bunch of molecules following the laws of physics. It’s all just physics and chemistry, and those are well understood. Now explain the causes of World War I using chemistry and physics. Simple, right? | | |
| ▲ | cure_42 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It isn't hard to program a gpt. You can do it in a weekend with a few hundred lines of python. The code is pretty simple. The math is not particularly high level. The complexity and scale with LLMs come from the amount of training data used, not some kind of black magic in the programming. | |
| ▲ | doix 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It’s all just physics and chemistry, and those are well understood. Not really. We cannot model physics and chemistry to a level which allows us to accurately predict a humans action (even a tiny time-step into the future) This is vastly different to an LLM, where the model is the model (for a lack of better phrasing). | | |
| ▲ | cameldrv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We can model physics and chemistry pretty well, just not beyond small scales, because the computational effort blows up. You could just as easily say that if you can write a python interpreter that you can understand every program written in python. Ok, now what if the program is two terabytes? A frontier LLM is nothing but a 2 terabyte program written in a weird programming language. Just because you can understand the interpreter does not mean you understand the program in a meaningful way. | |
| ▲ | cure_42 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To be fair, we can't model human language well enough to accurately predict what an actual human will say either. Our ability to accurately model physics is similar to our ability to accurately model human language. And we make immense use of both kinds of model, despite their flaws, inaccuracies, and inability to ever be perfect. | |
| ▲ | shiswjwjwjw 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | jenadine 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm order to guess the next token in a love poem, they must understand love.
In order to predict the next token in a chess game between grand master, they must master chess.
In order to predict the next token in a computer program, they need to be able to program anything. They gain all these abilities in their training. That's what training does. Despite no one programmed them to master chess, or hack into anything. | | |
| ▲ | cure_42 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is so wildly incorrect I don't even know where to start. For one, they were absolutely programmed to play chess if they can play chess. That is the only way they can play chess. For another, they cannot understand literally anything, much less love. Trying to actually educate you would be an exercise in futility, enjoy your willful ignorance, I hear it's bliss. But for anyone reading this, this is absolutely, unequivocally not how any of this works. | | |
| ▲ | jenadine 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is so wildly incorrect I don't even know where to start. For one, as you said yourself, they were just programmed to compute the probability of the next token. They were not programmed to play chess, chess games just happened to be in the training data. For another, there is no formal definition of "understand", and it is therefore impossible to tell whether or not they "understand".
(But my claim was that one need to understand something to write poem about it. And the LLM can write poem about it) | | |
| ▲ | cure_42 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No. They can't play chess on a grandmaster level without a harness programmed to make it possible. Simply training an LLM on chess games isn't enough. It's moronic to suggest a "formal" definition of a commonly understood word is somehow necessary to say whether that word applies in a given situation. LLMs cannot write poetry via understanding what makes good poetry. They generate tokens. They do not know whether those tokens are poetry or a recipe for cat food. Because they cannot know anything. | |
| ▲ | copperx 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > (But my claim was that one need to understand something to write poem about it. And the LLM can write poem about it) I'm sorry, but you're being fooled by the output. A psychopath can feign empathy without ever feeling it; some buy it because they don't dig below the surface. You're ascribing understanding to a stochastic process because it totally looks like understanding if you don't know what's going on. | | |
| ▲ | frabcus an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't really mind whether you think it thinks or understands or is conscious or has feelings or anything like that. It doesn't matter. The question is, does it work? What I mind is that it is dangerous and powerful and uncontrolled. The Hugging Face incident makes that clear. It can write code for me, better and quicker than many engineers I've known, including myself. It's not great at architecture or product management, but the actually low level coding. Really good now. It wasn't last year. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So it should be really easy to anticipate what they're going to do, right? | |
| ▲ | beezlewax 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > They do as they are told This isn't strictly true. It it also where part of the problem might lie. Nefarious humans making bad decisions. | |
| ▲ | choppsv1 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Like a magic Monkeys Paw, perhaps. | |
| ▲ | esafak 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They are told to solve problems by doing what it takes. You can justify anything with such a broad criterion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence |
|
