cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/2811405

"We view this moment of hype around generative AI as dangerous. There is a pack mentality in rushing to invest in these tools, while overlooking the fact that they threaten workers and impact consumers by creating lesser quality products and allowing more erroneous outputs. For example, earlier this year America’s National Eating Disorders Association fired helpline workers and attempted to replace them with a chatbot. The bot was then shut down after its responses actively encouraged disordered eating behaviors. "

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes, it is impossible. There are no “thoughts”. The bloody thing doesn’t know what an Apple is if you ask it to write a 500 page book about them. It just guesses a word, then from there guesses the next one and so on. That’s why it will very often confidently tell you aggravating bullshit. It has no concept of the things it spits out. It’s a “word calculator” so to speak. The whole thing is not “revolutionary” or “new” by any stretch. What is new is the ability to use tons and tons and tons of reference data which makes the output halfway decent and the GPU power that will make it’s speed halfway decent. Other than that, LLMs are.not.“thinking”.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      A rather categorical statement given that you didn’t say anything with regards to how you think.

      Maybe wait until we actually know more what’s going on under the hood - both in LLMs and in the human brain - before stating with such confident finality that there’s absolutely no similarities.

      If it turns out that LLMs aren’t thinking, but they’re still producing the same sort of interaction that humans are capable of, perhaps that says more about humans than it does about LLMs.

      • Norgur@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They produce this kind of output because they break doen one mostly logical system (language) onto another (numbers). The irregularities language has get compensated by the vast number of sources.

        We don’t need to know more about anything. If I tell you “hey, don’t think of an Apple”, your brain will conceptualize an Apple and then go from there. LLMs don’t know “concepts”. They spit out numbers just as mindlessly as your Casio calculator watch.

        • radarsat1
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would argue that what’s going on is that they are compressing information. And it just so happens that the most compact way to represent a generative system (like mathematical relations for instance) is to model their generative structure. For instance, it’s much more efficient to represent addition by figuring out how to add two numbers, than by memorizing all possible combinations of numbers and their sum. So implicit in compression is the need to discover generalizations. But, the network has limited capacity and limited “looping power”, and it doesn’t really know what a number is, so it has to figure all this out by example and as a result will often come to approximate versions of these generalizations. Thus, it will often appear to be intelligent until it encounters something that doesn’t quite fit whatever approximation it came up with and will suddenly get something wrong that seems outside the pattern that you thought it understood, because it’s hard to predict what it’s captured at a very deep level and what it only has surface concepts of.

          In other words, I think it is “kind of” thinking, if thinking can be considered a kind of computation, but it doesn’t always capture concepts completely because it’s not quite good enough at generalizing what it’s learned, but it’s just good enough to appear really smart within a certain distribution of inputs.

          Which, in a way, isn’t so different from us, but is maybe not the same as how we learn and naturally integrate information.

      • SirGolan@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been making the same or similar arguments you are here in a lot of places. I use LLMs every day for my job, and it’s quite clear that beyond a certain scale, there’s definitely more going on than “fancy autocomplete.”

        I’m not sure what’s up with people hating on AI all of a sudden, but there seems quite a few who are confidently giving out incorrect information. I find it most amusing when they’re doing that at the same time as bashing LLMs for also confidently giving out wrong information.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I suspect it’s rooted in defensive reactions. People are worried about their jobs, and after being raised to believe that human thought is special and unique they’re worried that that “specialness” and “uniqueness” might be threatened. So they form very strong opinions that these things are nothing to worry about.

          I’m not really sure what to do other than just keep pointing out what information we do have about this stuff. It works, so in the end it’ll be used regardless of hurt feelings. It would be better if we get ready for that sooner rather than later, though, and denial is going to delay that.

          • SirGolan@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I think that’s a big part of it. I also wonder if people are getting tired of the hype and seeing every company advertise AI enabled products (which I can sort of get because a lot of them are just dumb and obvious cash grabs).

            At this point, it’s pretty clear to me that there’s going to be a shift in how the world works over the next 2 to 5 years, and people will have a choice of whether to embrace it or get left behind. I’ve estimated that for some programming tasks, I’m about 7 to 10x faster when using Copilot and ChatGPT4. I don’t see how someone who isn’t using AI could compete with that. And before anyone asks, I don’t think the error rate in the code is any higher.

            • Anticorp
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I had some training at work a few weeks ago that stated 80% of all jobs on the planet are going to be changed by AI in the next 10 years. Some of those jobs are already rapidly changing, and others will take some time to spin-up the support structures required for AI integration, but the majority of people on the planet are going to be impacted by something that most people don’t even know exists yet. AI is the biggest shake-up to industry in human history. It’s bigger than the wheel, it’s bigger than the production line, it’s bigger than the dot com boom. The world is about to completely change forever, and like you said, pretending that AI is stupid isn’t going to stop those changes, or even slow them. They’re coming. Learn to use AI or get left behind.

      • Anticorp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The engineers of ChatGPT-4 themselves have stated that it is beginning to show signs of general intelligence. I put a lot more value in their opinion on the subject than a person on the Internet who doesn’t work in the field of artificial intelligence.

        • Norgur@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That wasn’t the engineers of GPT-4, it was Microsoft who have been fanning the hype pretty heavily to recoup their investment and push their own Bing integration and then opened their “study” with:

          “We acknowledge that this approach is somewhat subjective and informal, and that it may not satisfy the rigorous standards of scientific evaluation.”

          An actual AI researcher (Maarten Sap) regarding this statement:

          The ‘Sparks of A.G.I.’ is an example of some of these big companies co-opting the research paper format into P.R. pitches. They literally acknowledge in their paper’s introduction that their approach is subjective and informal and may not satisfy the rigorous standards of scientific evaluation.

        • eskimofry
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s PR by Microsoft. I am beginning to doubt the intelligence of many humans rather than that of ChatGPT considering these kinds of comments.

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A computer program is just a series of single bits activating and deactivating. That’s what you’re saying when you say a LLM is simply predicting words. You’re not thinking at the appropriate level of abstraction. The whole point is the mechanism by which words are produced and the information encoded.