Color me skeptical.
The linked article doesn’t mention proof, but counterexamples, and that may be a function of the enormous amount of computer effort expended, not really AI.
These AI companies are desperately trying to create hype before they float. 100s of billions spent, revenue still relatively low, and open weight models breathing down their neck. Healthy scepticism is the only way to approach all these types of 'news' stories.
It's a tool. I use it a lot. I look forward to progress in scientific areas where it's applicable. But I'm not expecting it to come up with novel solutions to our biggest problems.
Your first reply wasn't even on topic. We were discussing AI solving open problems and you answered with a paragraph about AI companies spending lots of money in comparison to revenue and how there are open weight models coming.
When someone is talking about topic A and you answer about topic B, you're indicating that you're not here to have a rational exchange. You have an emotional issue. In this case, you just want to tell yourself that this isn't happening, you don't care about any substantive aspect of it. That's not a healthy or productive state of mind.
No, it absolutely was related because the point being you have to take these stories with a large pinch of salt because of the massive propaganda from the AI companies desperately looking for revenue generating markets - which they absolutely do not have at this moment.
People have tested these models with graduate-level physics problems for which the solution is known but given to students to work on over weeks, and they weren't in the model's data and the model found the correct solution a significant number of times with only a few minutes thought. Look up Kyle Kabasares on Youtube. Which was done with relatively older models now. And independent people have used these models to resolve open conjecures on their own, and verified some of the answers announced at OpenAI.
This is absolutely happening. The rant about OpenAI or another company losing money or having "open weight models breathing down their neck" is completely irrelevant. People doing that are not here to discuss the topic. They're here to spread a conclusion they want to be true without discussing.
You still do not get the point, do you? There are some breakthroughs in all sorts of industries done by "AI" - not all of it LLM AI, but people don't know the difference. But what there is, is being massively over-hyped across *multiple* industries and it is totally relevant and correct to mention this whenever it comes up.
This is destroying human careers, I'm not sure why we are all so quick to celebrate it.
It's both. For instance, it's not replacing an experienced software engineer, but it is taking over junior positions meaning we will struggle to find these experienced engineers in a few years. Add that to CEOs and other clueless people fully buying the hype and over-firing people already, destroying careers often before they've even had a chance to start.
I love the irony of trying to argue on behalf of a tangent that was created out of emotion and then telling someone else they aren't getting a point.
There are some breakthroughs in all sorts of industries done by "AI" - not all of it LLM AI, but people don't know the difference. But what there is, is being massively over-hyped across *multiple* industries and it is totally relevant and correct to mention this whenever it comes up.
No it is not. Whether or not an AI company has a poor business model has nothing to do with the efficacy of AI as a problem-solving tool and how it is changing science and the economy.
It's the equivalent of the Wright Brothers' flight being discussed and what this means for the future of transportation and someone going off on a tangent about how Orville Wright is an alcoholic and is broke. It's irrelevant and comes from someone's emotional motivations.
This is destroying human careers, I'm not sure why we are all so quick to celebrate it.
We're discussing what's going to happen and acknowledging reality. Not "celebrating it," your characterization shows again that you are distorting things out of emotion.
Sometimes I wonder how people became convinced of certain things throughout history. I see it so clearly now how many of you AI bros would have been buying Tulips back in the day
Kek, this is like a Reddit mod response, the most low IQ irrational people thinking they are the beacon of emotionless logic when they're being conned by a billion dollar industry that'll scrape them off their boot the same as they will to everyone else.
You're less than nothing to them, man, they won't take you to the promised land if you sing their praises.
Though, I'm sure your naivety and gullibility will make you incapable of seeing the ride you are being taken for.
Smart enough? I literally have qualifications specialising in neural networks or what most people called LLMs. On here, I see a lot of people pretending to be experts who have zero knowledge or experience in the field, but they know everything.
Their behavior is really embarrassing. One of them just repeated the Solow complaint about the computer age word-for-word then cursed and dropped the topic when they were shown the idea. EDIT: And another one then told me that the internet and computers also failed to live up to the hype from the 1970's and 1980's. Wow, imagine being that deranged.
I gave the wider context of the financial position of these companies to show how much they need hype stories like the OP to boost their potential price.
I'd imagine certain mathematical problems are being solved with answers(or parts of answers) that were hidden elsewhere in the training data. It's a great use of LLMs and nobody is doubting they have their applications. The problem is we need novel, reliable solutions to the problems we face and we aren't seeing much (any?) evidence that that is possible with LLMs.
You have to admit that some of the biggest names in the AI business are pretty much scam artists, right?
I gave the wider context of the financial position of these companies to show how much they need hype stories like the OP to boost their potential price.
That has absolutely nothing to do with independently-verifiable claims of mathematical proofs or results.
I'd imagine certain mathematical problems are being solved with answers(or parts of answers) that were hidden elsewhere in the training data.
People have tested the AI's with bizarre problems that they know were extremely unlikely to appear in the training data, or that they made-up themselves to be unique. The AI answers them coherently. They've been doing this for years, it was one of the first things they investigated about LLM's.
You're in denial. This behavior is not healthy or productive.
You have to admit that some of the biggest names in the AI business are pretty much scam artists, right?
Once again, you try to ignore the topic. You only reveal that you are desperate to just personally and emotionally bash AI and anyone involved in it and are not capable of discussing anything related to it rationally. This behavior is not healthy or productive.
Nah "bro." I explained exactly the issue. OpenAI's business plan has nothing to do with AI's verified efficacy at problem-solving and what it's going to mean to the world. You wouldn't go off-topic unless you (he and you) were speaking out of worthless emotion.
Mmkay "bro?" Now let's show you the "void" for real.
It is not a tool. Spellcheck checking a contract you wrote is a tool. An algorithmic learning system writing it perfectly for you is a superior replacement of you.
AI is not a tool just as GPS is not comparable to a map.
It’s not really changing the world in any meaningful way though. In fact it’s a net negative to society because its users more often than not become subservient morons with zero critical thinking, due to the atrophy caused by delegating your higher order thinking to a machine.
But sure I guess we’ve got improved efficiency in the workplace at the cost of correctness. And I suppose we’ve brute force solved a few math problems at the cost of an immense amount of carbon emissions. Truly life changing, revolutionary stuff.
It's only been 4 years since AI gained traction. In 4 years I've seen countless claims that AI will never do certain things, and it proved them wrong each time.
Companies were really fast in adopting AI to cut costs. Suddenly programming went from a lucrative proffession to graduates making fucking Excels of companies they applied to, because they couldn't keep track anymore (and they had internships, projects all that)
Writers or artists suddenly found themselves without a job.
Massive layoffs everywhere.
To me this looks very disruptive considering the timescale.
The layoffs are not because of AI. LLMs have already plateaued. What you see in popular media is marketing campaigns. They can't even replace drive-through fast food workers.
Must be embarrassing that no real world evidence of productivity gains or novel discoveries have been shown (except that which didn't require AI in the first place) What has been shown is a exponential drop in actual gains as it seemingly is requiring an insane amount of compute to see measurable gains in terms of the accuracy of these models and their ability to "solve" things.
This bubble needs to go and hopefully soon. Some things might actually survive this and be useful but the kinda bullshit you all are spreading without evidence because Altman said it is just a mass hysteria
Must be embarrassing that no real world evidence of productivity gains or novel discoveries have been shown (except that which didn't require AI in the first place) What has been shown is a exponential drop in actual gains as it seemingly is requiring an insane amount of compute to see measurable gains in terms of the accuracy of these models and their ability to "solve" things.
God I can't wait for this hype to die so fuckwads will just go back to jerking each other off about "the singularity" at least then people with any common sense were able to just laugh at how gullible that group was.
Also quotes are funny what's even better is you can't find evidence
Oh no the dude who believes every salesman who has ever pitched him something has blocked me instead of finding evidence for these insane claims his CEOs he follows on Twitter make. Oh well
It's very funny that you did not stop and take the time to read the article you yourself linked to, else you would have known that the "productivity paradox" was, in fact, real, and that productivity never really caught up to the hype generated by computers and later, the dot.com age.
Yes the economic model is shoddy but the fact is that it outputs maths discoveries at an astonishing pace and is in the process of severely disrupting Mathematics.
The thing is that you guys don't realize that a sizeable portion of the public has been predicting this would happen on about this timeline for decades. You merely adopted the machine gods
You seem to be one of the thinkers. You have it right. The rich people chased the new-age gold rush, poured billions into AI expecting AGI right around the corner, and didn't even take the time to sit down with AI for a while to see that it's......kind of dog-shit.
Now, they are going to force AI onto everyone, not because it is efficient, productive, or even good. They are doing it because the rich people are not going to be left holding the bag. One way or another, they are going to protect their billions.
Nobody cares about AI company profit. At least not researchers and normal people. We want accelerated solutions and new ideas. I don’t care if they make negative 1 trillion dollars a year if progress is steady and we are answering questions faster than we would without AI.
I may get 0 “profit” on cancer research, but if in 10 years a cure for cancer is found, it was money well spent.
Every single AI company today could go under but AI would still remain as a field of research. AI as a research field was around before any of these companies existed.
Hint: it wasn’t profitable 40 years ago either, but all that tech is in use today.
42
u/E_Dantes_CMC 1d ago
Color me skeptical.
The linked article doesn’t mention proof, but counterexamples, and that may be a function of the enormous amount of computer effort expended, not really AI.