Recent submissions

Comment · 2 years ago
Just wanted to say thank you for your work and attention to detail, it's immensely valuable and we're all very grateful for it.
Comment · 2 years ago
Watching an entirely generated video of someone painting is crazy.

I can't wait to play with this but I can't even imagine how expensive it must be. They're training in full resolution and can generate up to a minute of video.

Seeing how bad video generation was, I expected it would take a few more years to get to this but it seems like this is another case of "Add data & compute"(TM) where transformers prove once again they'll learn everything and be great at it

Comment · 3 years ago
I think it's mostly the scale. Once you have a consistent user base and tons of GPUs, batching inference/training across your cluster allows you to process requests much faster and for a lower marginal cost.
Comment · 3 years ago
What I was saying is that because you need to go out of your way to make sure it's tokenized properly, I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough non properly tokenized examples in the dataset.

If that was the case, it would make it difficult to generalize these concepts.

Comment · 3 years ago
> LLMs are not particularly good at arithmetic, counting syllables, or recognizing haikus

I suspect most of this is due to tokenization making it difficult to generalize these concepts.

There are some weird edge cases though, for example GPT-4 will almost always be able to add two 40 digits number but it is also almost always wrong when adding a 40 digit and 35 digit number.

Comment · 3 years ago
AFAIK it's pretty standard practice not to expose the "raw" LLM directly to the user. You need a "sanity loop" where user input and the output of the LLM is checked by another LLM to actually enforce rules and mitigate prompt injections, etc.
Comment · 3 years ago
100% agree.

However, seeing how excited Palantir is with their war assistant LLM , the US testing autonomous fighter jets a few months ago, etc. I think there's a decent chance that AI won't even have to break out of its constraints. It's pretty much guaranteed people are going to do the obviously dumb thing and give it capabilities it shouldn't have or is not equipped to deal with safely.

Comment · 3 years ago
I don't think we need sentient AI for it to be autonomous. LLMs are powerful cognitive engines and weak knowledge engines. Cognition on its own does not allow them to be autonomous, but because they can use tools (APIs, etc.) they are able to have some degree of autonomy when given a task and can use basic logic to follow them through/correct their mistakes.

AutoGPTs and the likes are much overhyped (it's early tech experiments after all) and have not produced anything of value yet but having dabbled with autonomous agents, I definitely see a not so distant future when you can outsource valuable tasks to such systems.

Comment · 3 years ago
> Why is building what amounts to a calculator/spreadsheet/CAD program for language somehow a Rubicon that cannot be crossed?

We've already crossed it and I believe we should go full steam ahead, tech is cool and we should be doing cool things.

> Did people freak out this much about computers replacing humans when they were shown to be good at math?

Too young but I'm sure they did freak out a little! Computers have changed the world and people have internalized computers as being much better/faster at math but exhibiting creativity, language proficiency and thinking is not something people thought computers were supposed to do.

Comment · 3 years ago
There's no denying this is regulatory capture by OpenAI to secure their (gigantic) bag and that the "AI will kill us all" meme is not based in reality and plays on the fact that the majority of people do not understand LLMs.

I was simply explaining why I believe your perspective is not represented in the discussions in the media, etc. If these models were not getting incredibly good at mimicking intelligence, it would not be possible to play on people's fears of it.

Comment · 3 years ago
The human brain works around a lot of limiting biological functions. The necessary architecture to fully mimic a human brain on a computer might not look anything like the actual human brain.

That said, there are 8B+ of us and counting so unless there is magic involved, I don't see why we couldn't do a "1:1" replica of it (maybe far) in the future.

Comment · 3 years ago
> I don't want every to know how to make a bomb.

This information is not created inside the LLMs, it's part of their training data. If someone is motivated enough, I'm sure they'd need no more than a few minutes of googling.

> I do feel like this is more than a math formula

The sum is greater than the parts! It can just be a math formula and still produce amazing results. After all, our brains are just a neat arrangement of atoms :)

Comment · 3 years ago
> Why is it so hard to hear this perspective? Like, genuinely curious.

Because people have different definition of what intelligence is. Recreating the human brain in a computer would definitely be neat and interesting but you don't need that nor AGI to be revolutionary.

LLMs, as perfect Chinese Rooms, lack a mind or human intelligence but demonstrate increasingly sophisticated behavior. If they can perform tasks better than humans, does their lack of "understanding" and "thinking" matter?

The goal is to create a different form of intelligence, superior in ways that benefit us. Planes (or rockets!) don't "fly" like birds do but for our human needs, they are effectively much better at flying that birds ever could be.

Comment · 3 years ago
Agreed, there is way too much hype about the actual capabilities of the LLaMa models. However, instruction tuning alone makes Alpaca much more usable than the the base model and to be fair even some versions of the "tiny" 7B can do small talk relatively well.

> Using GPT to generate training data for fine-tuning seems to produce the best results, but even so, GPT4-x-Alpaca 30B is still clearly inferior to the real thing.

Distillation is interesting and it does seems to make the models adopt ChatGPT's style but I'm dubious that making LLMs generate entire datasets or copy/pasting ShareGPT is going to give you that great of a dataset. The whole point of RLHF is getting the human feedback to make the model better. OpenAI's dataset/RLHF work seems to be working wonders for them and will continue to give them a huge advantage (especially now that they're getting hundred of millions of conversations of people doing all sorts of things with ChatGPT)

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton