A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
In terms of hype it’s the crypto gold rush all over again, with all the same bullshit.
At least the tech is objectively useful this time around, whereas crypto adds nothing of value to the world. When the dust settles we will have spicier autocomplete, which is useful (and hundreds of useless chatbots in places they don’t belong…)
For something that is showing to be useful, there is no way it will simply fizzle out. The exact same thing was said for the whole internet, and look where we are now.
The difference between crypto and AI, is that as you said crypto didn't show anything tangible to the average person. AI, instead, is spreading like wildfire in software and research and being used by people even without knowing worldwide.
I've seen my immediate friends use chatbots to help them from passing boring yearly trainings at work, make speeches for weddings, and make rough draft lesson plans
By now, most of us have heard about the survey that asked AI researchers and developers to estimate the probability that advanced AI systems will cause “human extinction or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment of the human species”. Chillingly, the median response was that there was a 10% chance.
How does one rationalize going to work and pushing out tools that carry such existential risks? Often, the reason given is that these systems also carry huge potential upsides – except that these upsides are, for the most part, hallucinatory.
Ummm how about the obvious answer: most AI researchers won't think they're the ones working on tools that carry existential risks? Good luck overthrowing human governance using ChatGPT.
The chance of Fossil Fuels causing human extinction carries a much higher chance, yet the news cycle is saturated with fears that a predictive language model is going to make calculators crave human flesh. Wtf is happening
Capitalism. Be afraid of this thing, not of that thing. That thing makes people lots of money.
I agree that climate change should be our main concern. The real existential risk of AI is that it will cause millions of people to not have work or be underemployed, greatly multiplying the already huge lower class. With that many people unable to take care of themselves and their family, it will make conditions ripe for all of the bad parts of humanity to take over unless we have a major shift away from the current model of capitalism. AI would be the initial spark that starts this but it will be human behavior that dooms (or elevates) humans as a result.
The AI apocalypse won’t look like Terminator, it will look like the collapse of an empire and it will happen everywhere that there isn’t sufficient social and political change all at once.
I dont disagree with you, but this is a big issue with technological advancements in general. Whether AI replaces workers or automated factories, the effects are the same. We dont need to boogeyman AI to drive policy changes that protect the majority of the population. Just frustrated with AI scares dominating the news cycle while completely missing the bigger picture.
I think that the results are "high" as much as 10 percent because the researcher do not want to downplay how "intelligent" their new technology is. But it's not that intelligent as we and they all know it. There is currently 0 chance any "AI" can cause this kind of event.
Not directly, no. But the tools we have already that allow to imitate voice and faces in video streams in realtime can certainly be used by bad actors to manipulate elections or worse. Things like that - especially if further refined - could be used to figuratively pour oil into already burning political fires.
It will, and is helping humanity in different fields already.
We need to diverge PR speech from reality. AI is already being used in pharmaceutical fields, aviation, tracking (of the air, of the ground, of the rains...), production... And there is absolutely no way you can't say these are not helping humanity in their own way.
AI will not solve the listed issues on its own. AI as a concept is a tool that will help, but it will always end up on how well its used and with what other tools.
Also, saying AI will ruin humanity's existence or bring "disempowerment" of the species is a completely awful view that has no way of happening just simply due to the fact that its not profitable.
saying AI will ruin humanity’s existence or bring “disempowerment” of the species is a completely awful view that has no way of happening just simply due to the fact that its not profitable.
The economic incentives to churn out the next powerful beast as quickly as possible are obvious.
Making it safe costs extra, so that's gonna be a neglected concern for the same reason.
We also notice the resulting AIs are being studied after they are released, with sometimes surprising emergent capabilities.
So you would be right if we would approach the topic with a rational overhead view, but we don't.
I guess the important thing to understand about spurious output (what gets called "hallucinations") is that it's neither a bug nor a feature, it's just the nature of the program. Deep learning language models are just probabilities of co-occurrence of words; there's no meaning in that. Deep learning can't be said to generate "true" or "false" information, or rather, it can't be meaningfully said to generate information at all.
So then people say that deep learning is helping out in this or that industry. I can tell you that it's pretty useless in my industry, though people are trying. Knowing a lot about the algorithms behind deep learning, and also knowing how fucking gullible people are, I assume that—if someone tells me deep learning has ended up being useful in some field, they're either buying the hype or witnessing an odd series of coincidences.
The thing is, this is not "intelligence" and so "AI" and "hallucinations" are just humanizing something that is not. These are really just huge table lookups with some sort of fancy interpolation/extrapolation logic. So lot of the copyright people are correct. You should not be able to take their works and then just regurgitate them out. I have problem with copyright and patents myself too because frankly lot of it is not very creative either. So one can look at it from both ends. If "AI" can get close to what we do and not really be intelligent at all, what does that say about us. So we may learn a lot about us in the process.
Deep learning can be and is useful today, it's just that the useful applications are things like classifiers and computer vision models. Lots of commercial products are already using those kinds of models to great effect, some for years already.
What do you think of the AI firms who are saying it could help with making policy decisions, climate change, and lead people to easier lives?
Absolutely. Computers are great at picking out patterns across enormous troves of data. Those trends and patterns can absolutely help guide policymaking decisions the same way it can help guide medical diagnostic decisions.
The article was skeptical about this. It said that the problem with expecting it to revolutionize policy decisions isn’t that we don’t know what to do, it’s that we don’t want to do it. For example, we already know how to solve climate change and the smartest people on the planet in those fields have already told us what needed to be done. We just don’t want to make the changes necessary.
I think it can be useful. I have used it myself, even before chatgpt was there and it was just gpt 3. For example I take a picture, OCR it and then look for mistakes with gpt because it's better than a spell check. I've used it to write code in a language I wasn't familiar with and having seen the names of the commands needed I could fix it to do what I wanted. I've also used it for some inspiration, which I could also have done with an online search. The concept just blew up and people were overstating what it can do, but I think now a lot of people know the limitations.
I mean AI is already generating lots of bullshit 'reports'. Like you know, stuff that reports 'news' with zero skill. It's glorified copy-pasting really.
If you think about how much language is rote, in like law and etc. Makes a lot of sense to use AI to auto generate it. But it's not intelligence. It's just creating a linguistic assembly line. And just like in a factory, it will require human review to for quality control.
The thing is - and what's also annoying me about the article - AI experts and computational linguistics know this. It's just the laypeople that end up using (or promoting) these tools now that they're public that don't know what they're talking about and project intelligence onto AI that isn't there. The real hallucination problem isn't with deep learning, it's with the users.
I don't know exactly where to start here, because anyone who claims to know the shape of the next decade is kidding themself.
Broadly:
AI will decocratize creation. If technology continues on the same pace that it has for the last few years, we will soon start to see movies and TV with hollywood-style production values being made by individual people and small teams. The same will go for video games. It's certainly disruptive, but I seriously doubt we will want to go back once it happens. To use the article's examples, most people prefer a world with street view and Uber to one without them.
The same goes for engineering.
That’s putting millions of people out of a job with no real replacement. The ones that aren’t unemployed will be commanding significantly smaller salaries.
I seriously doubt this technology will pass by without a complete collapse of the labor market. What happens after is pretty much a complete unknown.
I think its fair to assert that society will shift dramatically. Though the climate will have as much to do with that as AI.
It's actually not as easy as you think, it "looks" easy because all you seen is the result of survivorship bias. Like instagram people, they don't post their failed shots. Like seriously, go download some stable diffusion model and try input your prompt, and see how good the result you can direct that AI to get things you want, it's fucking work and I bet a good photographer with a good model can do whatever and quicker with director.(even with greenscreen+etc).
I dab the stable diffusion a bit to see how it's like, with my mahcine(16GB vram), 30 count batch generation only yields maybe about 2~3 that's considered "okay" and still need further photoshopping. And we are talking about resolution so low most game can't even use as texture.(slightly bigger than 512x512, so usually mip 3 for modern game engine). And I was already using the most popular photoreal model people mixed together.(now consider how much time people spend to train that model to that point.)
Just for the graphic art/photo generative AI, it looks dangerous, but it's NOT there yet, very far from it. Okay, so how about the auto coding stuff from LLM, welp, it's similar, the AI doesn't know about the mistake it makes, especially with some specific domain knowledge. If we have AI that trained with specific domain journals and papers, plus it actually understand how math operates, then it would be a nice tool, cause like all generative AI stuff, you have to check the result and fix them.
The transition won't be as drastic as you think, it's more or less like other manufacturing, when the industry chase lower labour cost, local people will find alternatives. And look at how creative/tech industry tried outsource to lower cost countries, it's really inefficient and sometimes cost more + slower turn around time. Now, if you have a job posting that ask an artist to "photoshop AI results to production quality" let's see how that goes, I can bet 5 bucks that the company is gonna get blacklisted by artists. And you get those really desperate or low skilled that gives you subpar results.
It will shift a lot of human effort from generative to review. For example the core role of an engineer in many ways already is validation of a plan. Well that will become nearly the only role.
This is my favorite perspective on AI and it’s impact. I am curious as to what your thoughts are.
I think there's a problem with people wanting a fully developed brand new technology right out the gate. The cell phones of today didn't happen overnight, it started with a technology that had limitations and people innovated.
AI is a technology that has limitations, people will innovate it. Hopefully.
I think my favorite potential use case for AI is academics. There are countless numbers of journal articles that get published by students, grad students and professors, and the vast majority of those articles don't make an impact. Very few people read them, and they get forgotten. Vast amounts of data, hypotheses and results that might be relevant to someone trying to do something good, important or novel but they will never be discovered by them. AI can help with this.
Of course there's going to be problems that come up. Change isn't good for everyone involved, but we have to hope that there is a net good at the end. I'm sure whoever was invested in the telegram was pretty choked when the phone showed up, and whoever was invested in the carrier pigeon was upset when the telegram showed up. People will adapt, and society will benefit. To think otherwise is the cynical take on the same subject. The glass is both half full and half empty. You get to choose your perspective on it.
In my opinion, both can be true and it’s not either one or the other:
ML has surprised even many experts, in so far as a very simple mechanism at huge scale is able to produce some aspects of human abilities. It does not seem strange to me that it also reproduces other human abilities, like hallucinations. Maybe they are closer related then we think.
Company leaders and owners are doing what the capitalistic system incentives them to do: raise their companies value by any means possible, call that hallucinating or just marketing.
IMO it’s the responsibility of government to make sure AI does not become another capital concentration scheme like many other technologies have, widening the gap between rich and poor.
Comments are heavily focused on the title of the article and the opening paragraphs. I'm more interested in peoples' takes on the second half of the article, that highlights how the goals companies are touting are at odds with the most likely consequences of this trend.
I see both sides.
They're probably going to completely (and intentionally) collapse the labor market. This has never happened before, so there is no historical prescedent to look at. The closest thing we have was the industrial revolution, but even that was less disruptive because it also created a lot of new factory jobs. This doesn't.
The public hope is that this catastrophic widening of the gap between the rich and poor will force labor to organize and take some of the gains through legislation as an altenative to starving in the streets. Given that the technology will also make coercing people to work mostly pointless, there may not be as much pressure against it as there historically has been. Altman seems to be publically thinking in this direction, given the early basic income research and the profit cap for OAI. I can't pretend to know his private thoughts, but most people with any shred of empathy would be pushing for that in his shoes.
Of course, if this fails, we could also be headed for a permanent, robotically-enforced nightmare dystopia, which is a genuine concern. There doesn't seem to be much middle-ground, and the train has no brakes.
The IP theft angle from the end of the article seems like a pointless distraction though. All human knowledge and innovation is based on what came before, whether AI is involved or not. By all accounts, the remixing process it applies is both mechanically and functionally similar to the remixing process that a new generation of artists applies to its forebears, and I've not seen any evidence that they are fundamentally different enough to qualify as theft, except in the normal Picasso sense.
Interesting times.
Merits of the tech aside, It is amazing to see how many people are becoming ludites in response to this technology, especially those in industries who thought they were safe from automation. I feel like there has always been a sense of hubris between the creative industries and general labor, and AI is now forcing us to look in a computer generated mirror and reassess how special we really are.