Amazon's 'just walk out' checkout tech was powered by 1,000 Indian workers
Amazon's 'just walk out' checkout tech was powered by 1,000 Indian workers
You're viewing a single thread.
So-called "AI" is usually just a scam to hide human labor. The reality is this tech is not usable wthiout human curation, often requiring even more human labor than just doing things the old fashioned way.
When is this bubble going to pop?
They just failed to mention that their “AI” stand for “All Indians”
Damn this is good
I think its a bit more complex than that: you are right, but just in the beginning... after the AI is trained you dont need the cheap labor anymore. Which imho makes it even worse.
Marketing hype.
No amount of training can ever eliminate the need for human curation. This is not AI, it's a jumped up pattern recognition engine. False positives and false negatives are inevitable without a consciousness to evaluate it. Hallucinations are an intractable problem that can not be solved, regardless of training, and so all these AI can ever be is a tool for human workers.
It'll take something totally different and new.
LLMs may fabricate things now and then but so do humans. I am not convinced the problem is intractable.
You have no reason to believe the problem can be solved.
It's almost religious. You just have faith in technology you don't understand.
Keep praying to your machine spirits, maybe the Omnissiah will deliver the answer!
I have no reason to believe the problem can't be solved, except insofar as it hasn't been solved yet (but LLMs only recently took off). So without a good reason to believe it's intractable, I'm at worst 50/50 on if it can be solved. Faith in the machine spirit would be if I had an unreasonably high expectation LLMs can be made not to hallucinate, like 100%.
My expectation is around 70% that it's solvable.
You have no reason to think it can be solved. You're just blindly putting your faith in something you don't understand and making up percentages to make yourself sound less like a religious nut.
If I have no reason to believe X and no reason not to believe X, then the probability of X would be 50%, no?
By this logic, the probability of every stupid thing is 50%
You have no reason to believe magic is real, but you have no reason to not believe magic is real. So, is there a 50% probability that magic is real? Evidently you think so, because the magic science mans are going to magic up a solution to the problems faced by these chatbots.
Absolutely not true. The probabilities of stupid things are very low; that's because they are stupid. If we expected such things to be probable, we probably wouldn't call them stupid.
I have plenty of evidence to believe magic isn't real. Don't mistake "no evidence (and we haven't checked)" for "no evidence (but we've checked)". I've lived my whole life and haven't seen magic, and I have a very predictive model for the universe which has no term for 'magic'.
LLMs are new, and have made sweeping, landmark improvements every year since GPT2. Therefore I have reason to believe (not 100%!) that we are still in the goldrush phase and new landmark improvements will continue to be made in the field for some time. I haven't really seen an argument that hallucination is an intractable problem, and while it's true that all LLMs have hallucinated so far, GPT4 hallucinates much less than GPT3, and GPT3 hallucinates a lot less than GPT2.
But realistically speaking, even if I were unknowledgeable and unqualified to say anything with confidence about LLMs, I could still say this: for any statement X about LLMs which is not stupid by the metric that an unknowledgeable person would be able to perceive, the probability of that statement being true about LLMs to an unknowledgeable person is 50%. We know this because the opposite of that statement, call it ¬X, would also be equally opaque to an unknowledgeable person. Given X and ¬X are mutually exclusive, and we have no reason to favor one over the other, both have probability 50%.
This technology isn't actually that new, it's been around for almost a decade. What's new is the amount of processing power they have to throw at the data bases and the level of data collection, but you're just buying into marketing hype. It's classic tech industry stuff to over promise and under deliver to pump up valuations and sales.
I understand what you are saying but I dont agree, look at the examples we already have: I use chatgpt at work to code, it has limitations but works without any human curation. Check midjourney as well, it has great accuracy and if you ask a picture of dogs it will create without any human intervention. Yes, it took a long time and human effort to train them, but in the end it is not needed anymore for the majority of the cases. What you say about hallucinations, innacurate results, they happen yes, but ita becoming fringe cases and less and less. Its true that its not the miracle tool that marketing says it is, thats marketing, but its much more dangerous than it looks and will definetly substitute a lot of workers, it already does.
Have you stopped coding? I assume not! ChatGPT is a tool that can be used by human workers, replacing human workers is beyond it.
And sure, you can generate bland and derivative images with stable diffusion stuff, but it can't replace anyone. At best it just opens up the creation of art to a wider group of people, essentially de-skilling the profession. That's a serious problem! That's not actually substitution.
De-skilling is definitely worth talking about, though. When someone who doesn't really understand coding or art can generate what they need, all of that skill built up over the years by professionals will become less valuable. That's just like how I weld car parts despite not having the skill to actually weld most things. I'm not a skilled welder, yet I can replace a skilled welder with the right tools and robots.
This is not true at all. Transformer models like ChatGPT have already proven to be immensely useful and helpful in the professional world. It's not capable of doing jobs entirely on its own yet, but as a tool that helps humans do their job it's great.
Reread what I said. I said it's not usable without human curation i.e. what humans do when they use it as a tool to do their job.
You also said "often requiring even more human labor than doing things the old fashioned way" - i dare say that's the part they were countering.
I didn't say that it always requires more human labor! Stable diffusion, specifically, seems like it can really reduce the amount of human labor needed to generate art. It can't eliminate it, but it can definitely turn art from a skill that requires 10,000 hours to master into a skill that maybe requires 10 hours. Industrial de-skilling, in other words.
But that's the best case scenario. In many cases AI doesn't help at all and just requires human workers to fix it as it constantly fucks up, and it doesn't seem to get any better.
You said it requires even more human labor than doing things that old fashioned way, which in my experience is completely false.
I said it often does, and in my experience it definitely does. Fixing the stupid computer's stupid mistakes and waiting for it to fuck up is half of my job.
In some cases it reduces the amount of labor, but in a lot of cases it's being rolled out way too early and can't do the things managers think it can.
I can’t stand it when I see all these mainstream news stories about it all the time either. With tech ingnorant news anchors talking about it. Just continues pumping up the bubble. I worry rather than pop, it will just be a new buzzword that is here to stay. (AI was always a thing, but what we have now, these LLMs, are not really what we traditionally referred to as AI in scifi and traditional media.)