I don't think that's a fair take. The website Bloom built is useful background for why this is big news, and how we got here. But this isn't just about Bloom:
And, on May 20, OpenAI shared a solution (opens a new tab) to the unit distance problem, along with a blog post (opens a new tab) explaining the work and a companion paper (opens a new tab) that featured nine world-class mathematicians commenting on the correctness of the proof and the importance of what had been done (as well as presenting a streamlined human version of the result). Mathematicians had generally believed that Erdős’ conjecture — about how many evenly spaced points can be placed on a plane — was correct. To general surprise, OpenAI’s internal model found a counterexample. To do so, it had found a sophisticated way to use tools from an area of math called algebraic number theory. As Jacob Tsimerman (opens a new tab) of the University of Toronto wrote in the companion article, “This is a really impressive piece of work. … It is definitely an intimidating construction.”
At this point, I don't really understand the point of reductive arguments like "it's just a next-token predictor" in regards to LLMs. Even claims of "it's not useful" (not even limited to "not useful to me", just flat out "not useful"). There's always the response of comparing any argument to humans, e.g. "humans can generate bullshit too", but even aside from that, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. AI is doing interesting things.
There's downsides like power usage and centralized control by capitalists, but IMO those are problems to solve, not reasons to pretend AI is just hype.
I can't really square "wildly overstated" with the progress made so far with these models. Is there a specific claim you're thinking of that can be evaluated? Otherwise it feels like nutpicking, where you pick some audacious claim that nobody/barely anyone agrees with, and then go hard against that, ignoring the more reasonable positions.
Just looking at this article, how much do you think is worth investing in "AI" (however you want to define it) that can find novel mathematical results? Isn't that good for humanity and something we should be spending a solid amount of resources on?
Personally, I don't find much use in talking purely about the damages or harms of AI. It's often used to just dismiss it entirely, without trying to consider at all if those can be solved or mitigated. In other words, saying "AI is bad because X" isn't worth discussion. "How do we solve X caused by AI" is much more interesting.
EDIT: Funnily enough, I just got an email from the EFF that captures my position pretty well:
The important thing about a technology isn’t just what it does: it’s who it does it for and who it does it to. Cory Doctorow and EFF Executive Director Nicole Ozer are tackling what needs to happen now to ensure AI actually works for everyone, not just those in power.
Join us on Wednesday, August 12 at 10:00 am Pacific for the latest installment of our EFFecting Change Livestream Series: Who the Machine Serves. AI can help or harm people, and EFF was created to make sure it helps. We are at a critical juncture to ensure that AI is developed and used in ways that respect fundamental rights and works for those who build it, use it, and are affected by it. Find out more and bring your questions for this livestream with live Q&A.
EFFecting Change Livestream Series: Who the Machine Serves
Wednesday, August 12
10:00 am - 11:00 am Pacific - Check Local Time
Livestream followed by Q&A
5 Comments
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 3 pts · 2d
This article is a thinly veiled advertisement for ChatGPT. It's actually about some guy called Bloom who used ChatGPT to build a web site.
m_f@discuss.online · 1 pts · 2d
I don't think that's a fair take. The website Bloom built is useful background for why this is big news, and how we got here. But this isn't just about Bloom:
That's an impressive, important result.
m_f@discuss.online · 1 pts · 3d
At this point, I don't really understand the point of reductive arguments like "it's just a next-token predictor" in regards to LLMs. Even claims of "it's not useful" (not even limited to "not useful to me", just flat out "not useful"). There's always the response of comparing any argument to humans, e.g. "humans can generate bullshit too", but even aside from that, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. AI is doing interesting things.
There's downsides like power usage and centralized control by capitalists, but IMO those are problems to solve, not reasons to pretend AI is just hype.
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Ai is a catch all term for everything from tech parsing throuh maths problems to tech undressing family photos on twitter.
The tech isnt useless, it is wildly overstated. It is wildly disproportionate to what has been invested and the damages it causes.
m_f@discuss.online · 0 pts · 2d
I can't really square "wildly overstated" with the progress made so far with these models. Is there a specific claim you're thinking of that can be evaluated? Otherwise it feels like nutpicking, where you pick some audacious claim that nobody/barely anyone agrees with, and then go hard against that, ignoring the more reasonable positions.
Just looking at this article, how much do you think is worth investing in "AI" (however you want to define it) that can find novel mathematical results? Isn't that good for humanity and something we should be spending a solid amount of resources on?
Personally, I don't find much use in talking purely about the damages or harms of AI. It's often used to just dismiss it entirely, without trying to consider at all if those can be solved or mitigated. In other words, saying "AI is bad because X" isn't worth discussion. "How do we solve X caused by AI" is much more interesting.
EDIT: Funnily enough, I just got an email from the EFF that captures my position pretty well: