Well maybe one person is a little bit more impressed by some pretty pictures than another person. I really don’t see what that has to do with a company like Microsoft putting their money into this? They don’t make songs or movie trailers.
To me I’m stunned but that’s just me, on top of this we’re only in year like 5 of AI going mainstream, where will it be in 10 years? 20 years?
This is a common trap a lot of people fall into. See what improvements have been made the last couple of years, who knows where it will end up right? Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work like that. Improvements made in the past don’t guarantee improvements will continue in the future. There are ceilings that can be run into and are hard to break. There can even be hard limits that are impossible to break. There might be good reasons to not further develop promising technologies from the past into the future. There is no such thing as infinite growth.
Edit:
Just checked out that song, man that song is shit…
“My job vanished without lift.” What does that even mean? That’s not even English.
And that’s just one of the dozens of issues I’ve seen in 30 secs. You are kidding yourself if you think this is the future, that’s one shit future bro.
All right, we are done here. I’ve tried to engage with you in a fair and honest way. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to respond to the points you are trying to make.
But it appears you are just a troll or an idiot, either way I’m done.
The gains in AI have been almost entirely in compute power and training, and those gains have run into powerful diminishing returns. At the core it’s all still running the same Markov chains as the machine learning experiments from the dawn of computing; the math is over a hundred years old and basically unchanged.
For us to see another leap in progress we’ll need to pioneer new calculations and formulate different types of thought, then find a way to integrate that with large transformer networks.
Mixture of experts has been in use since 1991, and it’s essentially just a way to split up the same process as a dense model.
Tanks are an odd comparison, because not only have they changed radically since WW2, to the point that many crew positions have been entirely automated, but also because the role of tanks in modern combat has been radically altered since then (e.g. by the proliferation of drone warfare). They just look sort of similar because of basic geometry.
Consider the current crop of LLMs as the armor that was deployed in WW1, we can see the promise and potential, but it has not yet been fully realized. If you tried to match a WW1 tank against a WW2 tank it would be no contest, and modern armor could destroy both of them with pinpoint accuracy while moving full speed over rough terrain outside of radar range (e.g. what happened in the invasion of Iraq).
It will take many generational leaps across many diverse technologies to get from where we are now to realizing the full potential of large language models, and we can’t get there through simple linear progression any more than tanks could just keep adding thicker armor and bigger guns, it requires new technologies.
nd modern armor could destroy both of them with pinpoint accuracy while moving full speed over rough terrain outside of radar range (e.g. what happened in the invasion of Iraq).
lol, that is NOT what happened in Iraq. The tanks were sitting on low boy trucks for the vast majority of the invasion. How do I know this? Because they were in my convoys.
Even for major offensives after the initial invasion, that’s not at all what happened. They were basically employed as large mortars, sitting about a half mile outside of a town, and leveling it.
Ah, got ya. Even then, most of that was done by aircraft sorties, though, and not much tank action. The US didn’t enter Iraq very far in the first Gulf War.
I mean, I suppose so… But it certainly showed that in order to face off with a superior force, you need to not be a shite leader too. Capitulation won that conflict, by and large.
deleted by creator
Well maybe one person is a little bit more impressed by some pretty pictures than another person. I really don’t see what that has to do with a company like Microsoft putting their money into this? They don’t make songs or movie trailers.
This is a common trap a lot of people fall into. See what improvements have been made the last couple of years, who knows where it will end up right? Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work like that. Improvements made in the past don’t guarantee improvements will continue in the future. There are ceilings that can be run into and are hard to break. There can even be hard limits that are impossible to break. There might be good reasons to not further develop promising technologies from the past into the future. There is no such thing as infinite growth.
Edit:
Just checked out that song, man that song is shit…
“My job vanished without lift.” What does that even mean? That’s not even English.
And that’s just one of the dozens of issues I’ve seen in 30 secs. You are kidding yourself if you think this is the future, that’s one shit future bro.
deleted by creator
All right, we are done here. I’ve tried to engage with you in a fair and honest way. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to respond to the points you are trying to make.
But it appears you are just a troll or an idiot, either way I’m done.
deleted by creator
Lol confirmed both idiot and troll, thanks :)
It’s all good bro
Quickly making garbage doesn’t make the garbage good.
Yes that was the argument
u/Thorry84@feddit.nl: AI produces garbage
me: this looks amazing to me, sure it’s not perfect but it’s super impressive considering it was made in like 30 minutes
u/Thorry84@feddit.nl: no it’s garbage, look I noticed minor things that are not correct!
me: fair enough, can you make something better using any other tools besides AI?
u/Thorry84@feddit.nl: fuck you🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
The gains in AI have been almost entirely in compute power and training, and those gains have run into powerful diminishing returns. At the core it’s all still running the same Markov chains as the machine learning experiments from the dawn of computing; the math is over a hundred years old and basically unchanged.
For us to see another leap in progress we’ll need to pioneer new calculations and formulate different types of thought, then find a way to integrate that with large transformer networks.
deleted by creator
Mixture of experts has been in use since 1991, and it’s essentially just a way to split up the same process as a dense model.
Tanks are an odd comparison, because not only have they changed radically since WW2, to the point that many crew positions have been entirely automated, but also because the role of tanks in modern combat has been radically altered since then (e.g. by the proliferation of drone warfare). They just look sort of similar because of basic geometry.
Consider the current crop of LLMs as the armor that was deployed in WW1, we can see the promise and potential, but it has not yet been fully realized. If you tried to match a WW1 tank against a WW2 tank it would be no contest, and modern armor could destroy both of them with pinpoint accuracy while moving full speed over rough terrain outside of radar range (e.g. what happened in the invasion of Iraq).
It will take many generational leaps across many diverse technologies to get from where we are now to realizing the full potential of large language models, and we can’t get there through simple linear progression any more than tanks could just keep adding thicker armor and bigger guns, it requires new technologies.
lol, that is NOT what happened in Iraq. The tanks were sitting on low boy trucks for the vast majority of the invasion. How do I know this? Because they were in my convoys.
Even for major offensives after the initial invasion, that’s not at all what happened. They were basically employed as large mortars, sitting about a half mile outside of a town, and leveling it.
I was talking about the Gulf War in the 90s: https://youtu.be/b5EeKsEFpHI
I think the Iraqi tanks were mostly blown up by the time Bush Jr did his invasion.
Ah, got ya. Even then, most of that was done by aircraft sorties, though, and not much tank action. The US didn’t enter Iraq very far in the first Gulf War.
True. Though in what tank vs tank combat there was, the advantages of modern armor were stark.
I mean, I suppose so… But it certainly showed that in order to face off with a superior force, you need to not be a shite leader too. Capitulation won that conflict, by and large.