[stego-tech]

I came into the comments to see how the discourse is shaping up in light of the author’s claims, and I’m seeing the same old boosterism trying to dismiss it wholesale without providing conclusive evidence.

So without further ado:

* If LLMs can indeed produce wholly novel research independently without any external sources, then prove it. Cite sources, unlike the chatbot that told you it can do that thing. Show us actual results from said research or products that were made from it. We keep hearing these things exponentially increase the speed of research and development but nobody seemingly has said proof of this that’s uniquely specific to LLMs and didn’t rely on older, proven ML techniques or concepts.

* If generative AI really can output Disney quality at a fraction of the cost, prove it with clips. Show me AI output that can animate on 2s, 4s, and 1s in a single video and knows when to use any of the above for specific effects. Show me output that’s as immaculate as old Disney animation, or heck, even modern ToonBoom-like animation. Show me the tweens.

* Prove your arguments. Stop regurgitating hypeslop from CEBros, actually cite sources, share examples, demonstrate its value relative to humanity.

All people like us (myself and the author) have been politely asking for since this hype bubble inflated was for boosters to show actual evidence of their claims. Instead, we just get carefully curated sizzle reels and dense research papers making claims instead of actual, tangible evidence that we can then attempt to recreate for ourselves to validate the claims in question.

Stop insulting us and show some f*king proof, or go back to playing with LLMs until you can make them do the things you claim they can do.

[general1726]

> If LLMs can indeed produce wholly novel research independently without any external sources, then prove it.

I was actually thinking about it, and there could be a simple test - Remove all knowledge of X from knowledge corpus and train LLM on such corpus. Under X one can imagine anything - differential calculus, logarithms, Reimann Hypothesis, Special Theory of relativity, Fermat's theorems, ... And now ask AI questions which actually has lead to discovery of X.

If AI is able to rediscover X while not knowing about X, we can say it is proof of intelligence.

[dragonwriter]

> If LLMs can indeed produce wholly novel research independently without any external sources

I don't think this makes any sense and suspect it requires a deep misunderstanding of “research” to even consider this an issue.

Research is inherently something done in response to, and grounded in, the external.

[jsbisviewtiful]

> Stop insulting us and show some f*king proof, or go back to playing with LLMs until you can make them do the things you claim they can do.

Everything revolving around these LLMs so far as been tech hype culture and similar "think of the future" vibes. IMO we never see proof of this because right now it simply doesn't exist.

[tim333]

>Everything revolving around these LLMs so far as been tech hype culture...

compare with a headline from today:

>OpenAI’s ChatGPT to hit 700 million weekly users, up 4x from last year

I don't think there was much that hype when ChatGPT launched. Just an awful lot of people using it because it's kind of cool.

The critics seem to do a certain amount of goal post moving, like saying it's doing well by having unprecedented user growth is met by - f*king prove LLMs can indeed produce wholly novel research. Is anyone actually claiming they produce wholly novel research?

There is a similar effect with the featured blog post where the guy makes some perfectly reasonable arguments why he doesn't really like LLMs and doesn't want to work on them and then instead of titling it "Why I hate LLMs" goes with "Why I hate AI." But there's some quite cool stuff in non LLM AI like AlphaFold and trying to cure diseases. If you are talking about LLMs why not put LLM in the title?

[jsbisviewtiful]

> Is anyone actually claiming they produce wholly novel research?

I would argue companies performing layoffs because they think LLMs can do the work of a human is practically the same thing. There was even another article posted here today saying a bunch of companies are hiring humans again to fix the terrible work LLMs are doing, so it's fair to assume C-level jerks do think LLMs can produce something to the level of novel research and are finding out LLMs can't.

[nunez]

Sora is actually quite incredible. Someone on Reddit used it to produce a fake medical ad (yay, America!) that attracts puppies to you: https://reddit.idevicehacked.com/r/singularity/comments/1ksm...

It was quite convincing, and I could see lower-budget studios trying to make it work. (There is a truckload of garbage tier animation on all platforms.)

The person who submitted it is an experienced producer who used something like 600 prompts to generate the end result, so it's not exactly few-shot prompting from novices with no film experience. But it happened

Then again, the astroturfing done (presumably) by big LLM is off the charts, so who knows if this was actually what happened.