is this where we get to explain again why its not really ai?
He is writing about LLM mainly, and that is absolutely AI, it’s just not strong AI or general AI (AGI).
You can’t invent your own meaning for existing established terms.
LLMs are AI in the same way that the lane assist on my car is AI. Tech companies, however, very carefully and deliberately play up LLMs as being AGI or close to it. See for example toe convenient fear-mongering over the “risks” of AI, as though ChatGPT will become Skynet.
LLMs are AI as it is defined in Computer Science, not SciFi. And the lane assist on your car might also be, although it may just be a well tuned PID for all I know.
You should research the definition of AI then. Even the A* pathfinding algorithm was historically considered AI. It’s a remarkably broad field.
I have to do similar things when it comes to ‘raytracing’. It meant one thing, and then a company comes along and calls something sorta similar the same thing, then everyone has these ideas of what it should be vs. what it actually is doing. Then later, a better version comes out that nearly matches the original term, but there’s already a negative hype because it launched half baked and misnamed. Now they have to name the original thing something new new to market it because they destroyed the original name with a bad label and half baked product.
AI was 99% a fad. Besides OpenAI and Nvidia, none of the other corporations bullshitting about AI have made anything remotely useful using it.
Nvidia made money, but I’ve not seen OpenAI do anything useful, and they are not even profitable.
Absolutely not true. Disclaimer, I do work for NVIDIA as a forward deployed AI Engineer/Solutions Architect—meaning I don’t build AI software internally for NVIDIA but I embed with their customers’ engineering teams to help them build their AI software and deploy and run their models on NVIDIA hardware and software. edit: any opinions stated are solely my own, N has a PR office to state any official company opinions.
To state this as simply as possible: I wouldn’t have a job if our customers weren’t seeing tremendous benefit from AI technology. The companies I work with typically are very sensitive to CapX and OpX costs of AI—they self-serve in private clouds. If it doesn’t help them make money (revenue growth) or save money (efficiency), then it’s gone—and so am I. I’ve seen it happen; entire engineering teams laid off because a technology just couldn’t be implemented in a cost-effective way.
LLMs are a small subset of AI and Accelerated-Compute workflows in general.
To state this as simply as possible: I wouldn’t have a job if our customers weren’t seeing tremendous benefit from AI technology.
Right because corporate management doesn’t ever blindly and stupidly overinvest in fads that blow up in their faces…
I work with typically are very sensitive to CapX and OpX costs of AI—they self-serve in private clouds. If it doesn’t help them make money (revenue growth) or save money (efficiency), then it’s gone—and so am I.
You clearly have no clue what you’re on about. As someone with a degrees and experience in both CS and Finance all I have to say is that’s not at all how these things work. Plenty of companies lose money on these things in the hopes that their FP&A projection fever dreams will come true. And they’re wrong much more often than you seem to think. FP&A is more art than science and you can get financial models to support any argument you want to make to convince management to keep investing in what you think they should. And plenty of CEOs and boards are stupid enough to buy it. A lot of the AI hype has been bought and sold that way in the hopes that it would be worthwhile eventually or that other alternatives can’t be just as good or better.
I’ve seen it happen; entire engineering teams laid off because a technology just couldn’t be implemented in a cost-effective way.
This is usually what happens once they finally realize spending money on hype doesn’t pay off and go back to more established business analytics, operations research, and conventional software which never makes mistakes if it’s programmed correctly.
LLMs are a small subset of AI and Accelerated-Compute workflows in general.
No one ever said otherwise. And we’re talking about AI only, no moving the goalposts to accelerated computing, which is a mechanism through which to implement a wide range of solutions and not a specific one in and of itself.
That’s fair. I see what I see at an engineering and architecture level. You see what you see at the business level.
That said. I stand by my statement because I and most of my colleagues in similar roles get continued, repeated and expanded-scope engagements. Definitely in LLMs and genAI in general especially over the last 3-5 years or so, but definitely not just in LLMs.
“AI” is an incredibly wide and deep field; much more so than the common perception of what it is and does.
Perhaps I’m just not as jaded in my tech career.
operations research, and conventional software which never makes mistakes if it’s programmed correctly.
Now this is where I push back. I spent the first decade of my tech career doing ops research/industrial engineering (in parallel with process engineering). You’d shit a brick if you knew how much “fudge-factoring” and “completely disconnected from reality—aka we have no fucking clue” assumptions go into the “conventional” models that inform supply-chain analytics, business process engineering, etc. To state that they “never make mistakes” is laughable.
I would say LLMs specifically are in that ball park. Things like machine vision have been boringly productive and relatively un hyped.
There’s certainly some utility to LLMs, but it’s hard to see through all the crazy over estimations and being shoved everywhere by grifters.
largely based on the notion that LLMs will, with continued scaling, become artificial general intelligence
Who said that LLMs were going to become AGI? LLMs as part of an AGI system makes sense but not LLMs alone becoming AGI. Only articles and blog posts from people who didn’t understand the technology were making those claims. Which helped feed the hype.
I 100% agree that we’re going to see an AI market correction. It’s going to take a lot of hard human work to achieve the real value of LLMs. The hype is distracting from the real valuable and interesting work.
The call is coming from inside. Google CEO claims it will be like alien intelligence so we should just trust it to make political decisions for us bro: https://www.computing.co.uk/news/2024/ai/former-google-ceo-eric-schmidt-urges-ai-acceleration-dismisses-climate
I read a lot I guess, and I didn’t understand why they think like this. From what I see, are constant improvements in MANY areas! Language models are getting faster and more efficient. Code is getting better across the board as people use it to improve their own, contributing to the whole of code improvements and project participation and development. I feel like we really are at the beginning of a lot of better things and it’s iterative as it progresses. I feel hopeful
OpenAI published a paper about GPT titled “Sparks of AGI”.
I don’t think they really believe it but it’s good to bring in VC money
That is a very VC baiting title. But it’s doesn’t appear from the abstract that they’re claiming that LLMs will develop to the complexity of AGI.
No shit. This was obvious from day one. This was never AGI, and was never going to be AGI.
Institutional investors saw an opportunity to make a shit ton of money and pumped it up as if it was world changing. They’ll dump it like they always do, it will crash, and they’ll make billions in the process with absolutely no negative repercussions.
Turns out AI isn’t real and has no fidelity.
Machine learning could be the basis of AI but is anyone even working on that when all the money is in LLMs?
I’m not an expert, but the whole basis of LLM not actually understanding words, just the likelihood of what word comes next basically seems like it’s not going to help progress it to the next level… Like to be an artificial general intelligence shouldn’t it know what words are?
I feel like this path is taking a brick and trying to fit it into a keyhole…
learning is the basis of all known intelligence. LLMs have learned something very specific, AGI would need to be built by generalising the core functionality of learning not as an outgrowth of fully formed LLMs.
and yes the current approach is very much using a brick to open a lock and that’s why it’s … ahem … hit a brick wall.
shouldn’t it know what words are?
Not necessarily, but it should be smart enough to associate symbols with some form of meaning. It doesn’t do that, it juts associates symbols with related symbols, so if there’s nothing similar that already exists, it’s not going to be able to come back with anything sensible.
I think being able to create new content with partial sample data is necessary to really be considered general AI. That’s what humans do, and we don’t necessarily need the words to describe it.
Good. I look forward to all these idiots finally accepting that they drastically misunderstood what LLMs actually are and are not. I know their idiotic brains are only able to understand simple concepts like “line must go up” and follow them like religious tenants though so I’m sure they’ll waste everyone’s time and increase enshitification with some other new bullshit once they quietly remove their broken (and unprofitable) AI from stuff.
