[visarga]

> I just don't think enough attention has been paid to the data, and too much the model.

I wholly agree. Everyone is blinded by models - GPT4 this, LLaMA2 that - but the real source of the smarts is in the dataset. Why would any model, no matter how its architecture is tweaked, learn about the same ability from the same data? Why would humans be all able to learn the same skills when every brain is quite different. It was the data, not the model

And since we are exhausting all the available quality text online we need to start engineering new data with LLMs and validation systems. AIs need to introspect more into their training sets, not just train to reproduce them, but analyse, summarise and comment on them. We reflect on our information, AIs should do more reflection before learning.

More fundamentally, how are AIs going to evolve past human level unless they make their own data or they collect data from external systems?

[ben_w]

> It was the data, not the model

It's both.

It's clearly impossible to learn how to translate Linear A into modern English using only content written in pure Japanese that never references either.

Yet also, none of the algorithms before Transformers were able to first ingest the web, then answer a random natural language question in any domain — closest was Google etc. matching on indexed keywords.

> how are AIs going to evolve past human level unless they make their own data?

Who says they can't make their own data?

Both a priori (by development of "new" mathematical and logical tautological deductions), and a posteriori by devising, and observing the results of, various experiments.

Same as us, really.

[riversflow]

I see this brought up consistently on the topic of AI take-off/X-risk.

How does an AI language model devise an experiment and observe the results? The language model is only trained on what’s already known, I’m extremely incredulous that this language model technique can actually reason a genuinely novel hypothesis.

A LLM is a series of weights sitting in the ram of GPU cluster, it’s really just a fancy prediction function. It doesn’t have the sort of biological imperatives (a result of being complete independent beings) or entropy that drive living systems.

Moreover, if we consider how it works for humans, people have to _think_ about problems. Do we even have a model or even an idea about what “thinking” is? Meanwhile science is a looping process that mostly requires a physical element(testing/verification) to it. So unless we make some radical breakthroughs in general purpose robotics, as well as overcome the thinking problem I don’t see how AI can do some sort tech breakout/runaway.

[ben_w]

Starting with the end so we're on the same page about framing the situation:

> I don’t see how AI can do some sort tech breakout/runaway.

I'm expecting (in the mode, but with a wide and shallow distribution) a roughly 10x increase in GDP growth, from increased automation etc., not a singularity/foom.

I think the main danger is bugs and misuse (both malicious and short-sighted).

-

> How does an AI language model devise an experiment and observe the results?

Same way as Helen Keller.

Same way scientists with normal senses do for data outside human sense organs, be that the LHC or nm/s^2 acceleration of binary stars or gravity waves (or the confusingly similarly named but very different gravitational waves).

> The language model is only trained on what’s already known, I’m extremely incredulous that this language model technique can actually reason a genuinely novel hypothesis.

Were you, or any other human, trained on things unknown?

If so, how?

> A LLM is a series of weights sitting in the ram of GPU cluster, it’s really just a fancy prediction function. It doesn’t have the sort of biological imperatives (a result of being complete independent beings) or entropy that drive living systems.

Why do you believe that biological imperatives are in any way important?

I can't see how any of a desire to eat, shag, fight, run away, or freeze up… help with either the scientific method nor pure maths.

Even the "special sauce" that humans have over other animals didn't lead to any us doing the scientific method until very recently, and most of us still don't.

> Do we even have a model or even an idea about what “thinking” is?

AFAIK, only in terms of output, not qualia or anything like that.

Does it matter if the thing a submarine does is swimming, if it gets to the destination? LLMs, for all their mistakes and their… utterly inhuman minds and transhuman training experience… can do many things which would've been considered "implausible" even in a sci-fi setting a decade ago.

> So unless we make some radical breakthroughs in general purpose robotics

I don't think it needs to be general, as labs are increasingly automated even without general robotics.

[kaba0]

> Do we even have a model or even an idea about what “thinking” is

At the least, it is a computable function (as we don’t have any physical system that would be more general than that, though some religions might disagree). Which already puts human brains ahead of LLM systems, as we are Turing-complete, while LLMs are not, at least in their naive application (their output can be feeded to subsequent invocations and that way it can be).

[swid]

I googled whether or not universal function approximators, which neural nets are considered, are also considered Turing complete. It seems the general consensus is kind of not, since they are continuous and can’t do discreet operations in the same way.

But also, that isn’t quite the whole story, since they can be arbitrarily precise in their approximation. Here[0] is a white paper addressing this issue which concludes attention networks are Turing complete.

0: https://jmlr.org/papers/volume22/20-302/20-302.pdf

[kaba0]

If I’m not mistaken that’s only for arbitrary precision, which is not realistic.

[ben_w]

Is it provably not turning complete? That property pops up everywhere even when not intended, like Magic: The Gathering card interactions.

Technically you may not want to call it Turing complete given the limited context window, but I'd say that's like insisting a Commodore 64 isn't Turing complete for the same reason.

Likewise the default settings may be a bit too random to be a Turing machine, but that criticism would also apply to a human.

[kaba0]

It is basically a single huge matrix multiplication — you need some form of loop/repetition/recursion to be Turing complete.

Sure it is not a hard property, excel, css with mouse movements, game of life are all that, but they need a “possibly forever running” part.

[ben_w]

ChatGPT does have a loop, that's why it produces more than one token.

In this context, that the possibility of running "forever" would also exclude the humans (to which it is being compared) is relevant — even if we spend all day thinking in words at the rate of 160wpm and .75 words per token, we fall asleep around every 200k tokens, and some models (not from OpenAI) exceed that in their input windows.

[imtringued]

It's not just a series of weights. It is an unchanging series of weights. This isn't necessarily artificial intelligence. It is the intelligence of the dead.

[whimsicalism]

> Yet also, none of the algorithms before Transformers were able to first ingest the web, then answer a random natural language question in any domain — closest was Google etc. matching on indexed keywords.

Wrong, recurrent models were able to do this, just not as well.

[Salgat]

This is definitely current models' biggest issue. You're training a model against millions of books worth of data (which would take a human tens of thousands of lifetimes) to achieve a superficial level of conversational ability to match a human, which can consume at most 3 novels a day without compromising comprehension. Current models are terribly inefficient when it comes to learning from data.

[famouswaffles]

Modern LLMs are nowhere near the scale of the human brain however you want to slice things so terribly inefficient is very arguable. also language skills seemingly take much less data and scale when you aren't trying to have it learn the sum total of human knowledge. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07759

[Salgat]

Scale is a very subjective thing since one is analog (86B neurons) and one is digital (175B parameters). Additionally, consider how many compute hours GPT 3 took to train (10,000 V100s were set aside for exclusive training of GPT 3). I'd say that GPT 3 scale vastly dwarfs the human brain, which runs at a paltry 12 watts.

[kaba0]

Neumann’s Computer and The Brain book is way out of date in terms of today’s hardware, but funnily it is still relevant in this metric. Biological systems are more analogous to a distributed system of small, very slow CPUs. Even GPUs that somewhat close the gap in-between the few, crazy fast CPUs vs the aforementioned many, slow ones - are still much faster than any one neuron in calculations, but are still overly serial. It is not the number of CPUs, but the number of their connections that make biological systems so powerful.

[Salgat]

Parameters have many connections too though. If the next layer is 1000 parameters wide, you have potentially 1000 connections from a single parameter.

[whimsicalism]

You have to count the training process from the origin of the human brain imo, not from the birth of any individual human.

Neural nets look much more competitive by that standard.

[Salgat]

Yet humans designed the models, so the training process for chat gpt etc includes human evolution by your logic.

[whimsicalism]

This is a good point and the level of so-called task specific "inductive bias" in models is an active point of discussion, but I don't think it is fair to add all of our evolution to the model inductive bias because most of evolution was not towards giving better understanding of language to the model, it was towards better understanding of language in humans.

[imtringued]

They are inefficient by design. Gradient descent and backpropagation scale poorly, but they work and GPUs are cheap, so here we are.