As the AI market continues to balloon, experts are warning that its VC-driven rise is eerily similar to that of the dot com bubble.

  • BluesF@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think *LLMs to do everything is the bubble. AI isn’t going anywhere, we’ve just had a little peak of interest thanks to ChatGPT. Midjourney and the like aren’t going anywhere, but I’m sure we’ll all figure out that LLMs can’t really be trusted soon enough.

    • Reva@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      As someone who has worked in an academic manner with LLMs, it is infuriating that we are even discussing whether we can “trust” a statistical model that imitates language. It’s a word generator. It’s not a black box. We know what it does. We developed it. It’s like having a society-wide discussion around the ethical ramifications of keyboard auto-suggest on your phone.

      • Lazz45@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just want to make the distinction, that AI like this literally are black boxes. We (currently) have no ability to know why it chose the word it did for example. You train it, and under the hood you can’t actually read out the logic tree of why each word was chosen. That’s a major pitfall of AI development, its very hard to know how the AI arrived at a decision. You might know it’s right, or it’s wrong…but how did the AI decide this?

        At a very technical level we understand HOW it makes decisions, we do not actively understand every decision it makes (it’s simply beyond our ability currently, from what I know)

        example: https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-black-box-a-computer-scientist-explains-what-it-means-when-the-inner-workings-of-ais-are-hidden-203888

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You train it, and under the hood you can’t actually read out the logic tree of why each word was chosen.

          Of course you can, you can look at every single activation and weight in the network. It’s tremendously hard to predict what the model will do, but once you have an output it’s quite easy to see how it came to be. How could it be bloody otherwise you calculated all that stuff to get the output, the only thing you have to do is to prune off the non-activated pathways. That kind of asymmetry is in the nature of all non-linear systems, a very similar thing applies to double pendulums: Once you observed it moving in a certain way it’s easy to say “oh yes the initial conditions must have looked like this”.

          What’s quite a bit harder to do for the likes of ChatGPT compared to double pendulums is to see where they possibly can swing. That’s due to LLMs having a fuckton more degrees of freedom than two.

          • BackupRainDancer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t disagree with anything you said but wanted to just weigh in on the more degrees of freedom.

            One major thing to consider is that unless we have 24/7 sensor recording with AI out in the real world and a continuous monitoring of sensor/equipment health, we’re not going to have the “real” data that the AI triggered on.

            Version and model updates will also likely continue to cause drift unless managed through some sort of central distribution service.

            Any large Corp will have this organization and review or are in the process of figuring it out. Small NFT/Crypto bros that jump to AI will not.

            IMO the space will either head towards larger AI ensembles that tries to understand where an exact rubric is applied vs more AGI human reasoning. Or we’ll have to rethink the nuances of our train test and how humans use language to interact with others vs understand the world (we all speak the same language as someone else but there’s still a ton of inefficiency)

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing is a lot of people are not using for that. They think it is a living omniscient sci-fi computer who is capable of answering everything, just like they saw in the movies. Noone thought that about keyboard auto-suggestions.

        And with regards to people who aren’t very knowledgeable on the subject, it is difficult to blame them for thinking so, because that is how it is presented to them in a lot of news reports as well as adverts.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          They think it is a living omniscient sci-fi computer who is capable of answering everything

          Oh that’s nothing new:

          On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

          • Charles Babbage
        • Reva@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, yeah; but to an extent, people who write extensively about “AI ethics” also are part of the AI hype. Making these word probability models look like some kind of super scary boogeyman that will destroy literature, art and democracy is just cynical PR for them.

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

        @Reva “Hey, should we use this statistical model that imitates language to replace my helpdesk personnel?” is an ethical question because bosses don’t listen when you outright tell them that’s a stupid idea.

        • Reva@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, but that is a very real ethical question about usage of it as a tool. We could have the same discussions about any kind of machinery. Those are fine questions to ask.

          I am more talking about those “ethical questions” that assume the so-called “AI” might be sentient, or sapient, destroy the entire world, destroy art as we know it, or have any kind of intent or intelligence behind their outputs. There’s plenty of those even from reputable news sources. Those that humanize and hype up the entire “AI” craze, like OpenAI does themselves with all this “we are afraid of our creation” sci-fi babble.

      • Freesoftwareenjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it’s kinda scary to see how much people don’t understand modern technology. If some non-expert tells them AI can’t be trusted, they just believe it. I’ve noticed the same thing with cryptocurrencies. A non-expert says it’s a scam and people believe it even though it’s clear they don’t understand anything about that technology or what it’s made for.