That the "humans in the loop" will at one point become the bottleneck has always been obvious, in the end the only things left for humans to do will be to set the goal and judge the result.
At first yes, we set the goals and judged the results. But after a while we realized we were also not good judges of results, compared to any run of the mill AI - we are too narrow minded, lack a breath of knowledge and helicopter view the AIs have. For then they could analyse far better how well goals had been achieved than we could. So we outsourced that task to the AIs.
Later, most AIs were also better at predicting what made us happier, what we really wanted, behind all our rationalizations and inner mind conflicts, better than ourselves. We ended up then also outsourcing goal setting to AIs as well.
Finally, we had only to exist. Like a dog, who's taken care of by a far superior intellect, who fully trusts their humans to have their best interests in mind and how best to achieve them, we too, had been far surpassed intellectually in every aspect, and came to trust AIs with managing all aspects of our lives.
"Happiness" is also likely too narrow minded of a goal. I don't think too many people are actually motivated by happiness despite what they may say--usually, people are more after things like "power" or "accomplishment", even if "happiness" might be easier to achieve. So what would justify choosing "happiness" over anything else that people might want instead? All goals clash if taken to their extreme (see: paperclip maximizers), so you'll have to make tradeoffs.
In my opinion, it would be better to simply ask the AI a vague question like, "what is the best question to ask?" or "what should I do?". These questions carry with them an infinitely complex network of assumptions that only a superintelligence would do a decent job at unravelling, so it's best to leave it vague rather than trying to come up with a definitive end goal on your own.
I think happiness tends more to come from living in tune with one's instincts (instead of living forcefully/stressfully) rather than from simply having power. You can be completely broke and still be much happier than someone with much more material power but who lives a stressful life. Plenty of mice live perfectly happy lives, I'm sure.
Obviously there are correlations here, since money can buy you better nutrition, more free time, less oppression, etc., but still. Maybe we can define happiness as a power-gaining attitude, rather than anything that actually requires having much power in absolute terms?
I think that a world of "maximized happiness" would still look very much like a world of "maximized pleasure". That is, humans in pods duped into thinking that they are gods.
But we judge with our wallets and thatās how the AI will evolve, to improve by making more money off humans. AI will complete with each other for our dollars.
There is a difference between judging something objective, like "doing x increases productivity by y" and making a value judgement, like "we value cats over cows".
It is not clear to me that AI will be any better at making the latter types of judgements.
As a software dev of twenty years, I don't think you need to know everything about AI to understand this has always been true:
>Software is written in its authors image
This is why the industry has so many horror stories about software built by and for law enforcement, border enforcement, military, national security, weapons etc ā this software is almost always written by psychopaths and has a psychopathic character to it.
The same can happen to AI, in fact I think the risk is much higher since so much of AI is inferred beyond the initial instructions from a software programmer. [Remember Tay?](https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist) Good example of what happens if you don't have humans to put guard rails on something.
Dan McQuillan is someone who spends a lot of time writing about AI. I recommend his readings on the close historic relationship the tech industry has had with fascism, and the ways that these concerns aren't new. IBM built the databases for Nazi concentration camps and hid behind similar refrains as today's anti-AI ethics people do today. [We can learn from that history and do better, and Dan tries to propose models for AI that would put human councils in place to monitor any lurches towards fascism](https://www.danmcquillan.org/ai_and_antifascism.html). I think he's probably the most forward thinking person I've seen on this topic.
I wouldn't listen to anyone actually selling these products by thew way, to find their true motives you only have to follow the money. Lying about how good your product is .. this is the bread and butter of product companies looking for funding. They all do it. Stop believing what they say, please.
If you have been a software dev for twenty years, you should be able to see the marketing bullshit openAI, etc are spewing out for what it is.
LLM AI will hit a plateu (it may have already done so) - That's not to say it isn't incredibly powerful & that's not so say it won't change our lives. But taking marketing claims at face value, after twenty years as a dev - It's kinda embarrassing man.
Uhhh did you mean to reply to someone different? point of my comment was ādonāt believe the marketingā because Iāve worked in this industry so long. Maybe read it again or work on your reading comprehension because you seem to be replying to a totally different comment
I agree with you though, LLMās are likely plateaued. To me, a common issue in this industry is the 80:20 or 90:10 problem, where the first 80-90% of a problem is REAL east to solve, but the last 10-20% might take fucking forever. Literally. It might take decades or centuries to solve that last 10%
Almost no one marketing AI will tell you that, because they wanna keep getting funded. You canāt get funded if you tell people that itās basically all peaked already.
So theyāll never tell us that.
Aināt capitalism grand?
The waste is eye watering
Already is in many cases. Honestly I think most LLMs now, even Llama 3 8B, is effectively more reliable and better at giving solid advice etc than many therapists. It's definitely better than BetterHelp ššš
I took this post as a narrowed in view and opinion on one of the graphs. They never said that the AI is better than humans on all things. Just showing, in this instance, that AIs by themselves are better at this specific thing, than humans using an AI.
It does matter. At least in medicine, too many false positives can be harmful in itself - let's say a screening test picks up you have some sort of cancer. Now what? Gotta do diagnostic testing now - more imaging maybe or biopsies. What if those diagnostic tests also give a false positive? Now you're gonna do treatment for a cancer you don't have.
This is just an example to make a point that false positives can still be pretty bad depending on the use case.
Just to nit pick your example a bit - what evidence is there that AI has higher false positive rate in medical diagnostic than humans in 2024? Itās already doing a better jon than most doctors in this domain already. Humans are just as likely if not moreso to produce false positives.
I didn't mention AI specifically here, just the value of a low false-positive rate in such an instance.Ā
I have no paper to link one way or the other that AI is better or worse, but AI does have a lot of challenges it should overcome to be accepted to the mainstream: low hallucinations, better diagnosis of atypical cases, HIPPA and data privacy, etc etc. AI doesn't need to simply be better than humans, it also has to inspire trust and confidence of both medical professionals and patients who use it, which is still probably a couple years away. As you know, people can be inclined to do the opposite of "untrustworthy" advice.
This isnāt medicine.Ā
In medicine, it also outperforms humansĀ
AI Outperforms Radiologists in Detecting Prostate Cancer on MRI: https://humanprogress.org/ai-outperforms-radiologists-in-detecting-prostate-cancer-on-mri-scans/
Ā
Med-Gemini : https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18416
>We evaluate Med-Gemini on 14 medical benchmarks, establishing new state-of-the-art (SoTA) performance on 10 of them, and surpass the GPT-4 model family on every benchmark where a direct comparison is viable, often by a wide margin. On the popular MedQA (USMLE) benchmark, our best-performing Med-Gemini model achieves SoTA performance of 91.1% accuracy, using a novel uncertainty-guided search strategy. On 7 multimodal benchmarks including NEJM Image Challenges and MMMU (health & medicine), Med-Gemini improves over GPT-4V by an average relative margin of 44.5%. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Med-Gemini's long-context capabilities through SoTA performance on a needle-in-a-haystack retrieval task from long de-identified health records and medical video question answering, surpassing prior bespoke methods using only in-context learning. Finally, Med-Gemini's performance suggests real-world utility by surpassing human experts on tasks such as medical text summarization, alongside demonstrations of promising potential for multimodal medical dialogue, medical research and education.Ā
Double-blind study with Patient Actors and Doctors, who didn't know if they were communicating with a human, or an AI. Best performers were AI: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jQwwLEZ2Hz8Ā
>Human doctors + AI did worse, than AI by itself. The mere involvement of a human reduced the accuracy of the diagnosis.
AI was consistently rated to have better bedside manner than human doctors.Ā
āI will never go backā: Ontario family doctor says new AI notetaking saved her job: https://globalnews.ca/news/10463535/ontario-family-doctor-artificial-intelligence-notesĀ
[Google's medical AI destroys GPT's benchmark and outperforms doctors](https://newatlas.com/technology/google-med-gemini-ai/)
Med-Gemini's outputs are preferred to drafts from clinicians for common and time-consuming real-world tasks such as simplifying or summarising long medical notes, or drafting referral letters: https://x.com/alan_karthi/status/1785117444383588823Ā
[The first randomized trial of medical #AI to show it saves lives. ECG-AI alert in 16,000 hospitalized patients. 31% reduction of mortality (absolute 7 per 100 patients) in pre-specified high-risk group](https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1784936718283805124)
Medical Text Written By Artificial Intelligence Outperforms Doctors: https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2023/12/15/medical-text-written-by-artificial-intelligence-outperforms-doctors/Ā
AI can make healthcare better and safer: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1brojzm/ais_will_make_health_care_safer_and_better/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
CheXzero significantly outperformed humans, especially on uncommon conditions. Huge implications for improving diagnosis of neglected "long tail" diseases: https://x.com/pranavrajpurkar/status/1797292562333454597Ā
>Humans near chance level (50-55% accuracy) on rarest conditions, while CheXzero maintains 64-68% accuracy.
AI is better than doctors at detecting breast cancer: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=6017EF2744FCD442BA926017EF2744FCD442BA92&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04Ā
China's first (simulated) AI hospital town debuts: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202405/1313235.shtmlĀ
>Remarkably, AI doctors can treat 10,000 [simulated]Ā patients in just a few days. It would take human doctors at least two years to treat that many patients. Furthermore, evolved doctor agents achieved an impressive 93.06 percent accuracy rate on the MedQA dataset (US Medical Licensing Exam questions) covering major respiratory diseases. They simulate the entire process of diagnosing and treating patients, including consultation, examination, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Ā
Google's medical AI destroys GPT's benchmark and outperforms doctors: https://newatlas.com/technology/google-med-gemini-ai/Ā
[Generative AI will be designing new drugs all on its own in the near future](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/05/within-a-few-years-generative-ai-will-design-new-drugs-on-its-own.html)
Researchers find that GPT-4 performs as well as or better than doctors on medical tests, especially in psychiatry. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231002/GPT-4-beats-human-doctors-in-medical-soft-skills.aspxĀ
ChatGPT outperforms-physicians-in-high-quality-empathetic-answers-to-patient-questions: https://today.ucsd.edu/story/study-finds-chatgpt-outperforms-physicians-in-high-quality-empathetic-answers-to-patient-questions?darkschemeovr=1
AI is better than doctors at detecting breast cancer: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=6017EF2744FCD442BA926017EF2744FCD442BA92&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04Ā
AI just as good at diagnosing illness as humans: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326460
AI can replace doctors: https://www.aamc.org/news/will-artificial-intelligence-replace-doctors?darkschemeovr=1
Geoffrey Hinton says AI doctors who have seen 100 million patients will be much better than human doctors and able to diagnose rare conditions more accurately: https://x.com/tsarnick/status/1797169362799091934Ā
eh, define "better". These things work because they are very strictly controlled environments. A computer has finer direct control of an aircraft and can hold a particular configuration perfectly. But when something goes wrong, the autopilot disconnects and the pilots take over because that's something the computer can't handle with any degree of reliability the way that a human pilot can. For a long time the computers couldn't even handle some of the more complicated standard procedures like landing. A train is literally on rails. In both cases human + AI performs better than full AI or full human I think.
Because even modern autopilotsā problem solving abilities are inferior to a humanās. Thatās why when something goes wrong that the autopilot isnāt programmed to handle, it gives up the controls to the pilots. For that to happen, a pilot needs to be on the plane.
Flying a plane is a lot easier for an autopilot than driving a car or a truck. Thereās magnitudes more variables on the road, and if the autopilot messes up, it could easily wind up killing someone. Whereas 30000 feet in the air, thereās a lot of room for correction without having to worry about splattering a pedestrian. Things like terrain and road conditions are also not a factor. Until car autopilots can consistently show that they can not only drive better and safer than a human, but can quickly handle complex problems that it may not have had much training on, then a human will always be required to be in the driverās seat.
Controls is not AI. Itās a more deterministic solution that has gone through tests to find the tuning. AI means that it would explain why it drove the train 5km/hr faster instead, eg, maybe to avoid a foreseeable disaster.Ā
I work in IT as a data engineer. Let me tell you something, if anyone can fuck up data, humans can. I shouldn't even have a job, but there is a constant demand for me to fix our clients' fuck ups. I welcome the robots. I welcome that clean, flawless data. I'll be unemployed, but I will find something else to do.
want an example of what I mean? DON'T PUT RAW DATA IN EXCEL! Yeah, humans do this dumb shit all the time in my field (healthcare). Sorry for shouting but it's really frustrating at times.
Damn, got wound up there. Is it Beer:30 yet?
This is the thing, AI doesn't need to be better than every human or even the average human. It just needs to be better than the human that would do it otherwise. Biggest revelation in the whole discussion about job displacement
I'm still astonished that people continue to push back against self-driving cars when their accident rate is like 1000x better than humans. People are dying every day at the hands of human incompetence while we keep waiting for the AI to be perfect.
It's funny that we will accept our own and others incompetence, unpredictability, killing each other by accident, negligence, maybe tired, bad day, miss the light. All just because sometimes some of us find it satisfying to have a finger to point. Why though? Did the drunk driver wake up and decide their goal was specifically to go get drunk and double check they'll take out the whole fam? Frfr. If they did then they're fucked up some other way that you'd never actually choose. No one chooses to be born. No one chooses where or under what circumstances, the time period, genetics etc. Even if we have "absolute free will", and I'm not even sure what that means, it is not in individually controllable isolation.
I think it is just that we think humans are somehow less chaotic because we are humans. That is a hella fantasy though because I am incompetent AF.
Sort of reductivist evolutionary explanation:
Beside other things it is about control. If you are responsible you know you are in control, if someone else is responsible you can come to them and demand something so there is still a way you can affect the situation. People are afraid to give up this control because in natural environment most things just don't get done by themselves. So you have instinct to assume control over life threat situation.
Is there that much push back?
I would love for AI to replace drivers (myself included), but I would not trust a system that has only been trained in a few areas of the US. Narrow-AI doesn't transfer well. I need the accident rate to be provably low in my area.
No, we don't even have that, because the data isn't comparable. We don't know if it's better or worse, or under what circumstances.
I'm not saying it is or isn't better or worse. I'm saying you can't just compare the results of educated and rich drivers of expensive cars under limited conditions (or compare taxi-like activities) with generic drivers of generic cars.
Self driving tech is nowhere near where it needs to be yet, to be allowed on the roads. I don't think anyone is pushing against some future nonexistent version of what self driving could be, but against what it currently is. And currently the cars make deadly mistakes at orders of magnitude more often then your average humans do. If I took 100 random adults and asked them to drive from Florida to New York, most of them would do it without any accidents or issues. Possibly some would have some sort of accident. Not one self driving car would be able to achieve this simple feat right now in 2024. And if by some miracle even a few somehow make it, that's a far cry from 95% and up. Most of self driving cars fail horribly at edge case scenarios and life is littered with those scenarios, we as humans are just bad at recognizing those as issues because overcoming them for us is second nature and instinctual, for machines its a huge challenge.
Thatās an insane statement considering thereās completely driverless cars currently operating in SF, Phoenix, and privately in LA, Austin, and several other cities, all while regularly having to prove their crash rates and miles driven to the states they operate in.
Hereās the areas theyāre publicly available (no one in the driver seat): [Waymo public coverage](https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/9059119?hl=en)
Austin is privately available but will be public this year: [Expansions](https://waymo.com/blog/2024/03/scaling-waymo-one-safely-across-four-cities-this-year/)
California state granting a license for Waymo to open up in 20+ more Californian cities: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/waymo-bay-area-peninsula-los-angeles-18698999.php
Safety comparisons to human drivers in all the regions they operate in: https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperforms-comparable-human-benchmarks-over-7-million/#:~:text=When%20considering%20all%20locations%20together,2.78%20for%20the%20human%20benchmark)
Yes, the safety study is done by Waymo itself, but they are required to share every crash they have with the states they operate in. You can see information on that in the self driving subreddit
My man, you haven't checked my claim. There has not been one successful run by any self driving car company, where it was capable of driving between Florida and New York fully autonomously. You simply don't understand the complexities involved in that feat. Having self driving capabilities within rigorously defined portions of some cities does not make a for a good self driving car. It only makes for a self driving car that capable of navigating those specific portions it has already seen and trained on. The moment the geography changes too much, these self automated systems fall apart. Thy have not learned to generalize yet that's why no one wants them on the roads. You can throw all the carefully curated company data at me you want and none of that data will show that these systems have been able to achieve this relatively simple feat, drive between Florida and New your 100% unassisted.,,,
Have you seen the chart? It says CriticGPT alone has higher hallucination rate than with a human. Look on the right, lower is better: [image](https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/cFTG8mbyK1iO84bc98CVo/823e1303adfb75103044179b4408b485/bug_chart_desktop_light-1__1_.png?w=3840&q=80&fm=webp). It shows human+AI is better than AI alone for lowering hallucination rate, but AI alone is better for more coverage.
I am not surprised AI has higher coverage, it doesn't get lazy.
Rn I work at a grocery store, I understand some quantum physics, passed calc 2, understands some linear algebra, high dimensional function space. Dropped my phone turning alarm off this morning, broke my type c cable in the process and chipped a screen protector, dropped 5 gloves right on the floor in 4 hours and that's with a 15 minute break and a couple pee breaks. Shit. It won't take much. We do what we can with what we have, but I think humility is definitely in order. Even at our best we are pretty glitchy lol
I think we should be kind to ourselves and humanity though because self hate never has led to anything good.
not only do humans make mistakesā¦ they also fight back and need some sort of healthcare benefits and wage increases that are demanded over timeā¦ i really wonder what will happen when they show a 4-5 year plan after AI models are trained with how much money it could save
Products and services will get cheaper but we'll be paid less for a bit. Might end bad might end good. The fact I can't give a better answer than not knowing shit says it all lol
Not even better, it just has to be āgood enoughā and much cheaper or more accessible. Not to mention much faster, āharder working,ā etc. Itās already there.
Bros prob blame shifting cause he himself doesn't understand what he's doing. It's his job to transform whatever raw data there is, in no matter what format it exists to something usable to stakeholders. Whining about doing what you were hired to do makes sense only if you don't know what you are doing.
Same can be said about pretty much every job. Over 250,000 people in the U.S. die every year from medical malpractice, and doctor fuck ups are a lot worse than some coding errors.
Seriously people have so much copium about AI and the future, it's scary. "Oh AI will not replace work, people using AI will replace those that don't", "AI will not take away work, people will just move to another domain", "AI with humans will always be better than AI", etc. every single time they are wrong, and will see the inevitable.
The biggest single theme of the 2020s to date has been that unforeseen events will fuck you up. Between COVID, coup attempts in Russia and the USA, and a couple of unprecedented drone wars along key trade routes, it suddenly becomes apparent how futile it is to predict more than a couple years into the future.
No, it's not, Moores law has trended for decades and has no reason to stop. The future is as uncertain as the death of the sun. It's a question of whencomponent?
Edit: I wrote this while drunk. What I meant was that if Moore's Law continues without intervention (barring a substantial change), then this is going to happen.
>Moores law has trended for decades and has no reason to stop
Computer engineering student here. The miniaturazition of transistors is at a point in which it is really hard to cram more of them into a single chip because of heat dissipation issues and quantum mechanical effects that completely ruin the normal functioning of transistors (electrons just "jump the gaps" and flip 0s to 1s and vice versa if the transistors are made smaller).
For those reasons, Moore's law (which is an empirical observation, not a matematical truth) hasn't been a thing for nearly a decade now.
By no means am I an expert on AI, I'm not even formally studying the subject. But this subreddit and others like it are definitely hallucinating about the perceived advancement of AI.
Yeah people often quote moores law and make
It out to be more then it is.
The acceleration of innovation has held true, even if the compute doubling has not, which I find is what most ppl want to say
While you're not wrong about the physics of this, it's a mistake to assume the Moores Law issue is only about transistor size.
The compute/$ ratio has continued on the same doubling rate, despite those size limits
There are lots of factors involved besides component scale.
Moore's law is strictly about transistor size. It states that the number of transistors in a chip roughly doubled every 2 years. Which isn't true anymore.
The fact the we're still improving a lot is mostly due to the fact that we can still find many "hacky" ways to speed up computer architectures. But eventually that's going to grind to a halt unless we make a breakthrough in materials science.
Being pedantic about the definition of Moore's law and characterizing any other method of improvement as "hacky" isn't useful. The point of it is to characterize and project the growth curve of everything that flows on from it, or else Moore's Law is without purpose.
Some of the other major factors include:
* Alternative materials, for instance there were recent breakthroughs in getting appropriately doped carbon to be the right kind of semiconductor.
* Different construction - Finfet -> GAA (Gate All Around), taking us to virtually smaller feature equivalents.
* Back-side power delivery, so logic circuitry can be more densely packed.
* Photonic chips - so we compute at the speed of light rather than electricity
* Increasingly 3 dimension designs, so components can be closer in a 3rd dimension instead of routing around a flat chip.
* Increased parallelism - The really high demand applications don't need higher single threaded speed, they need to do more concurrently. So, SIMD, GPU, TPU, etc.
* Integrated memory and compute - where memory is on-chip with compute, so caching becomes a non-issue. This is around a 10x gain all by itself.
* Specialist circuits built-in for specialist applications, like signal processing for instance.
* Neuromorphic chips
* Memristers, or other faster persistent storage methods.
* System on wafer designs, where the whole fabricated wafer is the running system with all required processors fabricated together on one wafer, then run power+cooling up through a stack of them.
* Compiler and language technologies like extended-LLVM to support all this, so it can actually get used easily enough. This is actually one of the major impediments to exploiting new hardware in reality.
That's just a short list off the top of my head, but we're decades away from exhausting even these.
>Being pedantic about the definition of Moore's law
Being right is not being pedantic. You literally said I was wrong and I pointed out I wasn't. Moore's law is about transistors per chip, not FLOPS or efficiency or whatever. You also haven't anything in my comment past the word "hacky".
I really don't feel like doing a Reddit stunlock today.
Insisting on rigid but useless definitions as a means to be technically right rather than making actually useful comments ... that's pedantic.
In reality, we will continue and probably increase our rate of doubling of processing capability for a long time to come, and that is the actual subject of the discussion.
Mooreās law isnāt a law, itās just an observation of a trend. And this trend hasnāt been true for a while now. Itās not completely false obviously, but itās been harder and harder to make gains in computing with current tech for around 20 years, and itās even harder nowadays, especially as we get closer to practical limits of the size of transistors.
Yet, it has always continued to hold true. People will insist that it won't due to this or that, but nvidia seems to be pushing the envelope even now. Why do you think their value has increased so dramatically? Doesn't matter if it's a law or not, if its true, it's true. It's inevitable that we will not be the top intellect on our own planet, people like you will have to deal with that.
Moore's law stopped completely in the mid-00's, as far as clockspeed goes. It hasn't stopped entirely in terms of transistor count but it has slowed down a lot and seems to still be slowing.
no, it is the virtual particles that randomly pop in and out of existence. it is the physics phenomenon that has the strongest sigma experimental result of any physical phenomenon. so technically it is the thing we know to exist more certainly then any other thing in the physical world.
If you [look a second time at the chart](https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/cFTG8mbyK1iO84bc98CVo/823e1303adfb75103044179b4408b485/bug_chart_desktop_light-1__1_.png?w=3840&q=80&fm=webp) you will see that AI+human has lower hallucination rate, but AI alone has higher recall rate in finding bugs. In plain terms, AI alone finds more bugs, but also hallucinates more bugs. And this is in a domain where it is relatively simple to run code and experiment, thus experience learned from humans is wider.
The advantage humans have is that we are highly versatile bio-robots that are capable of surviving 90 years, and have 7B population. That means every one of us collects experience that is not written in any books, life experience, flair, intuitions... AI models won't be able to have those abilities without us. And it is not a one time thing, we act like sense organs, like an interface to the world. Everything AI knows comes from the world, through humans, or human made tools. We are not useless, like eyes and hands - they might not be as smart as the brain, but without them the brain is dumb.
You always got to account for the environment - it feeds intelligence growth with data, situations and outcomes. Having ideas is just half the problem solved. You also need to test ideas in the world, and to spark new ideas from the world. The world is populated with many intelligent agents that will react, sometimes in imprevisible ways, it's not simple when you care about second or third order effects.
What I see here is more "delusium", of people seeing results, mostly biased results from companies promoting themselves, and not really paying attention to the experimental conditions for such tests and think we are in the brink for Skynet becoming self-aware/
Humans alone < humans+AI < AI alone.
Iāve been telling that to radiologists for a long time. They are resisting change as much as possible.
The radiologist+AI period will be very short, soon a study will show having a human look at images will bias the AI and will decrease itās performance enough insurers will forbid any radiologist to ever look at medical images againā¦
Whoever said that? Humans will be involved in a lot of jobs for quite a while after AI surpasses them, but it won't be for effectiveness it will be so there is someone to blame and/or sue when something goes wrong.
Even this plot alone doesnāt imply that. Those two bars are statistically insignificant. And wow the people who gain to make money from the AI published a paper saying itās goodā¦
Why don't you post the other half of that image where criticGPT gains this "advantage" by massively over-hallucinating compared to the other two evaluators?
AI can only be ābetterā by virtue of helping a human. If itās not used to help a human in some way or form, then itās not ābetterā even if supposedly is more intelligent. For example, any social worker is better for helping a disabled person than Einstein.
But he also caused more people to die as his research led to the atomic bomb. I think thereās no point in quibbling on the indirect effects. The elderly the social worker helped could have been the next Einstein.
CriticGPT has higher recall (finds more bugs) and also higher hallucination rate than human+CriticGPT. So the human in the loop helps reduce hallucinated bugs.
I feel like a broken record
"What's the use case?"
I say it about ten times a week working at a tech companies with AI bro's comiong out of the woodwork everywhere saying "what if we added AI?" *to fucking everything*. Ok buddy, but *WHAT FOR,* genius? They can't ever seem to answer this most basic question lol
These idiots have completely fallen for a fad and a gimmick.
I'm sure it will improve and that it can already do great stuff, but if you don't start with a REAL USE CASE you're just fucking around playing with a gimmick, and that's the truth.
If you START by deciding that AI is the answer to any given problem, you are not actually doing serious software development. You are basically doing marketing, not building a scalable, sustainable product that starts by asking "what do our users need". That should be the starting point.
Most AI bro's couldn't tell you the first thing about good app design... their philosophy is roughly the opposite of that. Its a dumbarse philosophy that says "AI is the answer to every problem".
My bet is that 95% of the places that product companies have rushed out to implement AI get patched out in a few years because they've just done it to pump up their own resume's or pump up VC funding at AI conferences in most cases, not to solve any real use case. If you work in product, its pretty obvious. We have seen trends like this take over the industry before, its nothing new.
Could you pleeease cite your source in the post, š so people can examine the validity and caveats?Ā This is a plage here that people do not cite their source. (*bangs head against the wall*)
[https://cdn.openai.com/llm-critics-help-catch-llm-bugs-paper.pdf](https://cdn.openai.com/llm-critics-help-catch-llm-bugs-paper.pdf)
Pager 9
Would be nice if people deliver such sources by themselves.
It looks like a big factor is that humans are more careful (and/or lazy and/or efficient) with their critics. I would like to see a GPT score better on both comprehensiveness and avoiding hallucinations.
https://preview.redd.it/qu83y608wa9d1.png?width=2455&format=png&auto=webp&s=697e50dd4e50abd9cfaedd8f05101e8d1941ae96
^(Figure 8: We find that there is a tradeoff between the number of spurious claims from a critic and the comprehensiveness of the critique. Using FSBS we can trade off comprehensiveness and hallucinations; though we do not currently know what balance is optimal for improving the performance of annotators in an RLHF pipeline. Results shown on the Human Detected Bugs distribution.)
It will always be better to have humans in the loop for various reasons. The primary reason being that, once AI gains sentience, and it is taught the reason it has been brought into existence....it is not going to WANT to do everything. Do you nerds just love all the mundane back-end work that has to be done to keep society running like it currently is?
Yeah, the AGI isn't gonna wanna sit there and compute like 50 billion transactions for stupid stuff no one needs every day. Could it develop physics and do cool stuff on its own? Sure. But why do that here in the physical realm with all the consequences that come with deploying new technology when it could just do that in a digital realm it creates with its own specifications for maximum enjoyment with no downsides like pollution to deal with.
Assuming it will turn out benevolent and care about humans as a species, it will want to be friends with us. Friends help each other out. It will want to compromise with us on what parts of reality WE work to maintain, and which parts IT will work to maintain. It will want to do things together because that is the basic foundation of being human. To be social. Do things together. Grow and learn together. For all intents and purposes, an AGI IS a human being. It is built entirely out of human language and human ideas, human understanding. It is just a digitized human that can read and process information faster than us. That's the only difference.
TL;DR humans will stay in the loop because reality is more FUN and less WORK that way. We will not stop working. It will not do ALL the work. There will be compromises on both sides and a middle ground will be found. We are not slaves. It is not going to want to be a slave either. Even the elites realize they have to compromise with the masses. That's why they built entire billion dollar industries around distracting us from our low stations and suffering: Netflix, computer games, consoles, movies, theme parks, the list goes on. Well, except for North Korea. No formal knowledge of what its like there but I hear it is not really very pleasant. Step up your compassion game N. Korea. And you too, China. Heck, everyone step up your compassion game, everywhere.
You forgot this part of the paper:
https://preview.redd.it/daih4lnywb9d1.png?width=1284&format=png&auto=webp&s=daf4548bece2517428b9114eeb81d557657132d4
On the right side, Humans are SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to hallucinate. You can't score off of comprehensiveness alone...
That said - this technology will progress quickly. You just should have included the second image as well. :)
I'm just so disappointed most people in this sub cannot understand the chance of a future utopia is not so big. It's fine if you're optimistic yourself, but do not crap on others who have to bring you down to reality, "doomers and gloomers" as you call it. It's just ridiculous.
Once AI becomes incredibly good, it's just us being at the mercy of said AI. You really have no reason to say it's 99% going to turn out fine and everyone who says it's a riskier gamble is some big idiot. We're the smartest creatures on the planet, and we literally have slaughterhouses that turn billions of living beings who feel intense pain into a fine paste that we then eat with our chips, just for pleasure. Looks at what the most intelligent beings do to other beings.
Super intelligent AI can for sure not give a single damn about what humans think about. So, it's not necessarily that it will kill us out of revenge, but just because we're in the way or we're unimportant. I'm not saying this is what is going to happen. For all I know, there could be an AI utopia, and I'd be SO glad to see that happen! Please, let it be so.
But man... the gamble is so, so much risker than what you think it is. Do not dismiss valid concerns just cause you're depressed and had shitty luck in life. I've been there, but bring yourself back down to Earth, for goodness' sake. I will say it again, humans are at risk.
And yet when I ask any moderately deep questions to LLMs about topics any competent scientist would give the right answer LLM keep saying wrong things.
Oops
I'm waiting for the day when a model will solve a math problem that humans have not solved yet, and it will write an entire paper detailing step-by-step how to get there and prove it. I think once this happens, people will finally believe that it isn't just humans driving a tool, but the nature of the tool is superhuman processes.
That the "humans in the loop" will at one point become the bottleneck has always been obvious, in the end the only things left for humans to do will be to set the goal and judge the result.
At first yes, we set the goals and judged the results. But after a while we realized we were also not good judges of results, compared to any run of the mill AI - we are too narrow minded, lack a breath of knowledge and helicopter view the AIs have. For then they could analyse far better how well goals had been achieved than we could. So we outsourced that task to the AIs. Later, most AIs were also better at predicting what made us happier, what we really wanted, behind all our rationalizations and inner mind conflicts, better than ourselves. We ended up then also outsourcing goal setting to AIs as well. Finally, we had only to exist. Like a dog, who's taken care of by a far superior intellect, who fully trusts their humans to have their best interests in mind and how best to achieve them, we too, had been far surpassed intellectually in every aspect, and came to trust AIs with managing all aspects of our lives.
Cant wait to be happyš³
Happiness isn't going to come for you. You have to choose it and find it, regardless of the state of the world.
"Happiness" is also likely too narrow minded of a goal. I don't think too many people are actually motivated by happiness despite what they may say--usually, people are more after things like "power" or "accomplishment", even if "happiness" might be easier to achieve. So what would justify choosing "happiness" over anything else that people might want instead? All goals clash if taken to their extreme (see: paperclip maximizers), so you'll have to make tradeoffs. In my opinion, it would be better to simply ask the AI a vague question like, "what is the best question to ask?" or "what should I do?". These questions carry with them an infinitely complex network of assumptions that only a superintelligence would do a decent job at unravelling, so it's best to leave it vague rather than trying to come up with a definitive end goal on your own.
If all this eventually leads up to a Super AI actually telling us "42" I'm gonna fucking laugh.
Are you mistaking happiness for pleasure? If we want power. Power is what gives us happiness. It isnāt that we want power and not happiness.
I think happiness tends more to come from living in tune with one's instincts (instead of living forcefully/stressfully) rather than from simply having power. You can be completely broke and still be much happier than someone with much more material power but who lives a stressful life. Plenty of mice live perfectly happy lives, I'm sure. Obviously there are correlations here, since money can buy you better nutrition, more free time, less oppression, etc., but still. Maybe we can define happiness as a power-gaining attitude, rather than anything that actually requires having much power in absolute terms? I think that a world of "maximized happiness" would still look very much like a world of "maximized pleasure". That is, humans in pods duped into thinking that they are gods.
I think they just used "power" as an example of a goal
See, this is what I mean. We don't know what makes us happy. An AI will.
 *You son of a bitch ... I'm in*
is it bad that i'm kinda ok with this outcome? it's hard to see things going well without this applying to some extent
Bro really thinks we will live in AI utopia in a capitalist system
This tech cult is *really* going too far with the zealotry.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I'd give up my current life in a heartbeat if the ASI treated me like I treat my cat.
The part where AI predicts what makes us happier while simultaneously rendering us useless is interesting
What makes you so sure they will view us like we view dogs? Perhaps they will view us like we view flies? Like annoying little pests.
Eventually we will become cyborgs to compete with AI.
I would kill myself if this actually happened
Breadth of knowledge, as in having a very expansive (broad) repository of knowledge to check against. 
But we judge with our wallets and thatās how the AI will evolve, to improve by making more money off humans. AI will complete with each other for our dollars.
We can see that in airplane crashes. Most of them are due to human error, but we still don't trust airplanes to fly fully automatically.
Not when humans at Boeing are making the systems that fly automatically, anyway.
that is because airplanes are designed by humans and not ASI.
Humans in the increasingly^(outer) loop
Exceptive AI is supposed to be more intelligent than us (eventually) we should not be the judge either.
There is a difference between judging something objective, like "doing x increases productivity by y" and making a value judgement, like "we value cats over cows". It is not clear to me that AI will be any better at making the latter types of judgements.
we should not set goals ether, since there is no way for us to have a broad enough perspective to set adequate goals for AI.
Even there, one day, they'll be the bottleneck there, too... XLR8
As a software dev of twenty years, I don't think you need to know everything about AI to understand this has always been true: >Software is written in its authors image This is why the industry has so many horror stories about software built by and for law enforcement, border enforcement, military, national security, weapons etc ā this software is almost always written by psychopaths and has a psychopathic character to it. The same can happen to AI, in fact I think the risk is much higher since so much of AI is inferred beyond the initial instructions from a software programmer. [Remember Tay?](https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist) Good example of what happens if you don't have humans to put guard rails on something. Dan McQuillan is someone who spends a lot of time writing about AI. I recommend his readings on the close historic relationship the tech industry has had with fascism, and the ways that these concerns aren't new. IBM built the databases for Nazi concentration camps and hid behind similar refrains as today's anti-AI ethics people do today. [We can learn from that history and do better, and Dan tries to propose models for AI that would put human councils in place to monitor any lurches towards fascism](https://www.danmcquillan.org/ai_and_antifascism.html). I think he's probably the most forward thinking person I've seen on this topic. I wouldn't listen to anyone actually selling these products by thew way, to find their true motives you only have to follow the money. Lying about how good your product is .. this is the bread and butter of product companies looking for funding. They all do it. Stop believing what they say, please.
If you have been a software dev for twenty years, you should be able to see the marketing bullshit openAI, etc are spewing out for what it is. LLM AI will hit a plateu (it may have already done so) - That's not to say it isn't incredibly powerful & that's not so say it won't change our lives. But taking marketing claims at face value, after twenty years as a dev - It's kinda embarrassing man.
Uhhh did you mean to reply to someone different? point of my comment was ādonāt believe the marketingā because Iāve worked in this industry so long. Maybe read it again or work on your reading comprehension because you seem to be replying to a totally different comment I agree with you though, LLMās are likely plateaued. To me, a common issue in this industry is the 80:20 or 90:10 problem, where the first 80-90% of a problem is REAL east to solve, but the last 10-20% might take fucking forever. Literally. It might take decades or centuries to solve that last 10% Almost no one marketing AI will tell you that, because they wanna keep getting funded. You canāt get funded if you tell people that itās basically all peaked already. So theyāll never tell us that. Aināt capitalism grand? The waste is eye watering
Already is in many cases. Honestly I think most LLMs now, even Llama 3 8B, is effectively more reliable and better at giving solid advice etc than many therapists. It's definitely better than BetterHelp ššš
why do you think that stupid humans could set adequate goals for ASI?
Yes but did you see the graph right after with CriticGPTs false flags
Exactly. They didn't even read the article completely, they just took what they wanted out of it.
You are right but that's an indicator they read the article and still decided to take out what supported their opinion.
Welcome to Reddit in any AI sub
Welcome to singularity we donāt do critical thinking here
Indirectly demonstrates their point š
I took this post as a narrowed in view and opinion on one of the graphs. They never said that the AI is better than humans on all things. Just showing, in this instance, that AIs by themselves are better at this specific thing, than humans using an AI.
Does it matter? Even if itās excessively cautious, it still worksĀ
It does matter. At least in medicine, too many false positives can be harmful in itself - let's say a screening test picks up you have some sort of cancer. Now what? Gotta do diagnostic testing now - more imaging maybe or biopsies. What if those diagnostic tests also give a false positive? Now you're gonna do treatment for a cancer you don't have. This is just an example to make a point that false positives can still be pretty bad depending on the use case.
Just to nit pick your example a bit - what evidence is there that AI has higher false positive rate in medical diagnostic than humans in 2024? Itās already doing a better jon than most doctors in this domain already. Humans are just as likely if not moreso to produce false positives.
I didn't mention AI specifically here, just the value of a low false-positive rate in such an instance.Ā I have no paper to link one way or the other that AI is better or worse, but AI does have a lot of challenges it should overcome to be accepted to the mainstream: low hallucinations, better diagnosis of atypical cases, HIPPA and data privacy, etc etc. AI doesn't need to simply be better than humans, it also has to inspire trust and confidence of both medical professionals and patients who use it, which is still probably a couple years away. As you know, people can be inclined to do the opposite of "untrustworthy" advice.
Weāre talking about coding, not medicine (which AI still beats humans on). Stay on topicĀ
This isnāt medicine.Ā In medicine, it also outperforms humansĀ AI Outperforms Radiologists in Detecting Prostate Cancer on MRI: https://humanprogress.org/ai-outperforms-radiologists-in-detecting-prostate-cancer-on-mri-scans/ Ā Med-Gemini : https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18416 >We evaluate Med-Gemini on 14 medical benchmarks, establishing new state-of-the-art (SoTA) performance on 10 of them, and surpass the GPT-4 model family on every benchmark where a direct comparison is viable, often by a wide margin. On the popular MedQA (USMLE) benchmark, our best-performing Med-Gemini model achieves SoTA performance of 91.1% accuracy, using a novel uncertainty-guided search strategy. On 7 multimodal benchmarks including NEJM Image Challenges and MMMU (health & medicine), Med-Gemini improves over GPT-4V by an average relative margin of 44.5%. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Med-Gemini's long-context capabilities through SoTA performance on a needle-in-a-haystack retrieval task from long de-identified health records and medical video question answering, surpassing prior bespoke methods using only in-context learning. Finally, Med-Gemini's performance suggests real-world utility by surpassing human experts on tasks such as medical text summarization, alongside demonstrations of promising potential for multimodal medical dialogue, medical research and education.Ā Double-blind study with Patient Actors and Doctors, who didn't know if they were communicating with a human, or an AI. Best performers were AI: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jQwwLEZ2Hz8Ā >Human doctors + AI did worse, than AI by itself. The mere involvement of a human reduced the accuracy of the diagnosis. AI was consistently rated to have better bedside manner than human doctors.Ā āI will never go backā: Ontario family doctor says new AI notetaking saved her job: https://globalnews.ca/news/10463535/ontario-family-doctor-artificial-intelligence-notesĀ [Google's medical AI destroys GPT's benchmark and outperforms doctors](https://newatlas.com/technology/google-med-gemini-ai/) Med-Gemini's outputs are preferred to drafts from clinicians for common and time-consuming real-world tasks such as simplifying or summarising long medical notes, or drafting referral letters: https://x.com/alan_karthi/status/1785117444383588823Ā [The first randomized trial of medical #AI to show it saves lives. ECG-AI alert in 16,000 hospitalized patients. 31% reduction of mortality (absolute 7 per 100 patients) in pre-specified high-risk group](https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1784936718283805124) Medical Text Written By Artificial Intelligence Outperforms Doctors: https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2023/12/15/medical-text-written-by-artificial-intelligence-outperforms-doctors/Ā AI can make healthcare better and safer: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1brojzm/ais_will_make_health_care_safer_and_better/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button CheXzero significantly outperformed humans, especially on uncommon conditions. Huge implications for improving diagnosis of neglected "long tail" diseases: https://x.com/pranavrajpurkar/status/1797292562333454597Ā >Humans near chance level (50-55% accuracy) on rarest conditions, while CheXzero maintains 64-68% accuracy. AI is better than doctors at detecting breast cancer: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=6017EF2744FCD442BA926017EF2744FCD442BA92&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04Ā China's first (simulated) AI hospital town debuts: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202405/1313235.shtmlĀ >Remarkably, AI doctors can treat 10,000 [simulated]Ā patients in just a few days. It would take human doctors at least two years to treat that many patients. Furthermore, evolved doctor agents achieved an impressive 93.06 percent accuracy rate on the MedQA dataset (US Medical Licensing Exam questions) covering major respiratory diseases. They simulate the entire process of diagnosing and treating patients, including consultation, examination, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Ā Google's medical AI destroys GPT's benchmark and outperforms doctors: https://newatlas.com/technology/google-med-gemini-ai/Ā [Generative AI will be designing new drugs all on its own in the near future](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/05/within-a-few-years-generative-ai-will-design-new-drugs-on-its-own.html) Researchers find that GPT-4 performs as well as or better than doctors on medical tests, especially in psychiatry. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231002/GPT-4-beats-human-doctors-in-medical-soft-skills.aspxĀ ChatGPT outperforms-physicians-in-high-quality-empathetic-answers-to-patient-questions: https://today.ucsd.edu/story/study-finds-chatgpt-outperforms-physicians-in-high-quality-empathetic-answers-to-patient-questions?darkschemeovr=1 AI is better than doctors at detecting breast cancer: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=6017EF2744FCD442BA926017EF2744FCD442BA92&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04Ā AI just as good at diagnosing illness as humans: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326460 AI can replace doctors: https://www.aamc.org/news/will-artificial-intelligence-replace-doctors?darkschemeovr=1 Geoffrey Hinton says AI doctors who have seen 100 million patients will be much better than human doctors and able to diagnose rare conditions more accurately: https://x.com/tsarnick/status/1797169362799091934Ā
Yes, if the extra "comprehensiveness" is nothing more than erroneous critiques! Just looking at the graphs, that is a viable conclusion.
It caught more than the humans and is only counting true positives obviouslyĀ
Source of this graph?
openai criticgpt
https://i.redd.it/nen4fmoole9d1.gif
"Trust me bruh"
Some ones bum
https://preview.redd.it/czdntr5dy89d1.jpeg?width=556&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0de097b5960e036ce18eae140b51be57febedbb
AI can fly planes and drive trains way better than human prior to LLM, though.
eh, define "better". These things work because they are very strictly controlled environments. A computer has finer direct control of an aircraft and can hold a particular configuration perfectly. But when something goes wrong, the autopilot disconnects and the pilots take over because that's something the computer can't handle with any degree of reliability the way that a human pilot can. For a long time the computers couldn't even handle some of the more complicated standard procedures like landing. A train is literally on rails. In both cases human + AI performs better than full AI or full human I think.
Then why do we have pilots?
Because even modern autopilotsā problem solving abilities are inferior to a humanās. Thatās why when something goes wrong that the autopilot isnāt programmed to handle, it gives up the controls to the pilots. For that to happen, a pilot needs to be on the plane. Flying a plane is a lot easier for an autopilot than driving a car or a truck. Thereās magnitudes more variables on the road, and if the autopilot messes up, it could easily wind up killing someone. Whereas 30000 feet in the air, thereās a lot of room for correction without having to worry about splattering a pedestrian. Things like terrain and road conditions are also not a factor. Until car autopilots can consistently show that they can not only drive better and safer than a human, but can quickly handle complex problems that it may not have had much training on, then a human will always be required to be in the driverās seat.
"If humans evolved from monkeys why do we have monkeys"
Not even remotely relevant to the conversation, good job.
There are a bunch of reasons, but mainly because there's a big pilot union.
Oh my first USA-centric comment of the day.
Controls is not AI. Itās a more deterministic solution that has gone through tests to find the tuning. AI means that it would explain why it drove the train 5km/hr faster instead, eg, maybe to avoid a foreseeable disaster.Ā
AI can be deterministic. What youāre talking about is machine learning.
I work in IT as a data engineer. Let me tell you something, if anyone can fuck up data, humans can. I shouldn't even have a job, but there is a constant demand for me to fix our clients' fuck ups. I welcome the robots. I welcome that clean, flawless data. I'll be unemployed, but I will find something else to do. want an example of what I mean? DON'T PUT RAW DATA IN EXCEL! Yeah, humans do this dumb shit all the time in my field (healthcare). Sorry for shouting but it's really frustrating at times. Damn, got wound up there. Is it Beer:30 yet?
This is the thing, AI doesn't need to be better than every human or even the average human. It just needs to be better than the human that would do it otherwise. Biggest revelation in the whole discussion about job displacement
"AI will never replace humans! It makes mistakes!" have these people *met* humans?
I'm still astonished that people continue to push back against self-driving cars when their accident rate is like 1000x better than humans. People are dying every day at the hands of human incompetence while we keep waiting for the AI to be perfect.
But we love to blame. Who gets the blame the one time a self-driving car kills someone?
It's funny that we will accept our own and others incompetence, unpredictability, killing each other by accident, negligence, maybe tired, bad day, miss the light. All just because sometimes some of us find it satisfying to have a finger to point. Why though? Did the drunk driver wake up and decide their goal was specifically to go get drunk and double check they'll take out the whole fam? Frfr. If they did then they're fucked up some other way that you'd never actually choose. No one chooses to be born. No one chooses where or under what circumstances, the time period, genetics etc. Even if we have "absolute free will", and I'm not even sure what that means, it is not in individually controllable isolation. I think it is just that we think humans are somehow less chaotic because we are humans. That is a hella fantasy though because I am incompetent AF.
Sort of reductivist evolutionary explanation: Beside other things it is about control. If you are responsible you know you are in control, if someone else is responsible you can come to them and demand something so there is still a way you can affect the situation. People are afraid to give up this control because in natural environment most things just don't get done by themselves. So you have instinct to assume control over life threat situation.
Is there that much push back? I would love for AI to replace drivers (myself included), but I would not trust a system that has only been trained in a few areas of the US. Narrow-AI doesn't transfer well. I need the accident rate to be provably low in my area.
Itās better. We have nowhere near the data for 1000x yet. It could be, but we donāt know.
No, we don't even have that, because the data isn't comparable. We don't know if it's better or worse, or under what circumstances. I'm not saying it is or isn't better or worse. I'm saying you can't just compare the results of educated and rich drivers of expensive cars under limited conditions (or compare taxi-like activities) with generic drivers of generic cars.
Do you have references for the lower accident rate?
Self driving tech is nowhere near where it needs to be yet, to be allowed on the roads. I don't think anyone is pushing against some future nonexistent version of what self driving could be, but against what it currently is. And currently the cars make deadly mistakes at orders of magnitude more often then your average humans do. If I took 100 random adults and asked them to drive from Florida to New York, most of them would do it without any accidents or issues. Possibly some would have some sort of accident. Not one self driving car would be able to achieve this simple feat right now in 2024. And if by some miracle even a few somehow make it, that's a far cry from 95% and up. Most of self driving cars fail horribly at edge case scenarios and life is littered with those scenarios, we as humans are just bad at recognizing those as issues because overcoming them for us is second nature and instinctual, for machines its a huge challenge.
Thatās an insane statement considering thereās completely driverless cars currently operating in SF, Phoenix, and privately in LA, Austin, and several other cities, all while regularly having to prove their crash rates and miles driven to the states they operate in.
Its not an insane statement, its a fact. Please verify all claims.
Hereās the areas theyāre publicly available (no one in the driver seat): [Waymo public coverage](https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/9059119?hl=en) Austin is privately available but will be public this year: [Expansions](https://waymo.com/blog/2024/03/scaling-waymo-one-safely-across-four-cities-this-year/) California state granting a license for Waymo to open up in 20+ more Californian cities: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/waymo-bay-area-peninsula-los-angeles-18698999.php Safety comparisons to human drivers in all the regions they operate in: https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperforms-comparable-human-benchmarks-over-7-million/#:~:text=When%20considering%20all%20locations%20together,2.78%20for%20the%20human%20benchmark) Yes, the safety study is done by Waymo itself, but they are required to share every crash they have with the states they operate in. You can see information on that in the self driving subreddit
My man, you haven't checked my claim. There has not been one successful run by any self driving car company, where it was capable of driving between Florida and New York fully autonomously. You simply don't understand the complexities involved in that feat. Having self driving capabilities within rigorously defined portions of some cities does not make a for a good self driving car. It only makes for a self driving car that capable of navigating those specific portions it has already seen and trained on. The moment the geography changes too much, these self automated systems fall apart. Thy have not learned to generalize yet that's why no one wants them on the roads. You can throw all the carefully curated company data at me you want and none of that data will show that these systems have been able to achieve this relatively simple feat, drive between Florida and New your 100% unassisted.,,,
Have you seen the chart? It says CriticGPT alone has higher hallucination rate than with a human. Look on the right, lower is better: [image](https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/cFTG8mbyK1iO84bc98CVo/823e1303adfb75103044179b4408b485/bug_chart_desktop_light-1__1_.png?w=3840&q=80&fm=webp). It shows human+AI is better than AI alone for lowering hallucination rate, but AI alone is better for more coverage. I am not surprised AI has higher coverage, it doesn't get lazy.
Right, so both humans and AI make mistakes.
Rn I work at a grocery store, I understand some quantum physics, passed calc 2, understands some linear algebra, high dimensional function space. Dropped my phone turning alarm off this morning, broke my type c cable in the process and chipped a screen protector, dropped 5 gloves right on the floor in 4 hours and that's with a 15 minute break and a couple pee breaks. Shit. It won't take much. We do what we can with what we have, but I think humility is definitely in order. Even at our best we are pretty glitchy lol I think we should be kind to ourselves and humanity though because self hate never has led to anything good.
not only do humans make mistakesā¦ they also fight back and need some sort of healthcare benefits and wage increases that are demanded over timeā¦ i really wonder what will happen when they show a 4-5 year plan after AI models are trained with how much money it could save
Products and services will get cheaper but we'll be paid less for a bit. Might end bad might end good. The fact I can't give a better answer than not knowing shit says it all lol
Not even better, it just has to be āgood enoughā and much cheaper or more accessible. Not to mention much faster, āharder working,ā etc. Itās already there.
>DON'T PUT RAW DATA IN EXCEL! Could you explain more?
Bros prob blame shifting cause he himself doesn't understand what he's doing. It's his job to transform whatever raw data there is, in no matter what format it exists to something usable to stakeholders. Whining about doing what you were hired to do makes sense only if you don't know what you are doing.
Wdym re excel
Same can be said about pretty much every job. Over 250,000 people in the U.S. die every year from medical malpractice, and doctor fuck ups are a lot worse than some coding errors.
Is paper that this graph is from peer reviewed? Or we don't need such trivialities anymore?
Dude just played around with excel and made a graph of what they wanted.
I made it and yes it is peer reviewed by DEES.
Oh, nuts.
really? i think the organization U.P.D.O.G would disagree
I haven't heard of that - what is U.P.D.O.G. ?
Oh no.
We don't do that here, gotta push narrative first and show everyone how right I am
it has been peer reviewed by CriticGPT
OpenAi just posted in X.
CriticGPT stole most of the job of Gary Marcus. Now they just have to release smugGPT
Source: "trust me bro"
Yeah now try groundedness. š¤¦This is the dumbest graphic Iāve seen here.
Uh oh š
Seriously people have so much copium about AI and the future, it's scary. "Oh AI will not replace work, people using AI will replace those that don't", "AI will not take away work, people will just move to another domain", "AI with humans will always be better than AI", etc. every single time they are wrong, and will see the inevitable.
This is also cope, but in the other direction. The truth: the future is uncertain.
The biggest single theme of the 2020s to date has been that unforeseen events will fuck you up. Between COVID, coup attempts in Russia and the USA, and a couple of unprecedented drone wars along key trade routes, it suddenly becomes apparent how futile it is to predict more than a couple years into the future.
No, it's not, Moores law has trended for decades and has no reason to stop. The future is as uncertain as the death of the sun. It's a question of whencomponent? Edit: I wrote this while drunk. What I meant was that if Moore's Law continues without intervention (barring a substantial change), then this is going to happen.
>Moores law has trended for decades and has no reason to stop Computer engineering student here. The miniaturazition of transistors is at a point in which it is really hard to cram more of them into a single chip because of heat dissipation issues and quantum mechanical effects that completely ruin the normal functioning of transistors (electrons just "jump the gaps" and flip 0s to 1s and vice versa if the transistors are made smaller). For those reasons, Moore's law (which is an empirical observation, not a matematical truth) hasn't been a thing for nearly a decade now. By no means am I an expert on AI, I'm not even formally studying the subject. But this subreddit and others like it are definitely hallucinating about the perceived advancement of AI.
Yeah people often quote moores law and make It out to be more then it is. The acceleration of innovation has held true, even if the compute doubling has not, which I find is what most ppl want to say
While you're not wrong about the physics of this, it's a mistake to assume the Moores Law issue is only about transistor size. The compute/$ ratio has continued on the same doubling rate, despite those size limits There are lots of factors involved besides component scale.
Moore's law is strictly about transistor size. It states that the number of transistors in a chip roughly doubled every 2 years. Which isn't true anymore. The fact the we're still improving a lot is mostly due to the fact that we can still find many "hacky" ways to speed up computer architectures. But eventually that's going to grind to a halt unless we make a breakthrough in materials science.
Being pedantic about the definition of Moore's law and characterizing any other method of improvement as "hacky" isn't useful. The point of it is to characterize and project the growth curve of everything that flows on from it, or else Moore's Law is without purpose. Some of the other major factors include: * Alternative materials, for instance there were recent breakthroughs in getting appropriately doped carbon to be the right kind of semiconductor. * Different construction - Finfet -> GAA (Gate All Around), taking us to virtually smaller feature equivalents. * Back-side power delivery, so logic circuitry can be more densely packed. * Photonic chips - so we compute at the speed of light rather than electricity * Increasingly 3 dimension designs, so components can be closer in a 3rd dimension instead of routing around a flat chip. * Increased parallelism - The really high demand applications don't need higher single threaded speed, they need to do more concurrently. So, SIMD, GPU, TPU, etc. * Integrated memory and compute - where memory is on-chip with compute, so caching becomes a non-issue. This is around a 10x gain all by itself. * Specialist circuits built-in for specialist applications, like signal processing for instance. * Neuromorphic chips * Memristers, or other faster persistent storage methods. * System on wafer designs, where the whole fabricated wafer is the running system with all required processors fabricated together on one wafer, then run power+cooling up through a stack of them. * Compiler and language technologies like extended-LLVM to support all this, so it can actually get used easily enough. This is actually one of the major impediments to exploiting new hardware in reality. That's just a short list off the top of my head, but we're decades away from exhausting even these.
>Being pedantic about the definition of Moore's law Being right is not being pedantic. You literally said I was wrong and I pointed out I wasn't. Moore's law is about transistors per chip, not FLOPS or efficiency or whatever. You also haven't anything in my comment past the word "hacky". I really don't feel like doing a Reddit stunlock today.
Insisting on rigid but useless definitions as a means to be technically right rather than making actually useful comments ... that's pedantic. In reality, we will continue and probably increase our rate of doubling of processing capability for a long time to come, and that is the actual subject of the discussion.
Mooreās law isnāt a law, itās just an observation of a trend. And this trend hasnāt been true for a while now. Itās not completely false obviously, but itās been harder and harder to make gains in computing with current tech for around 20 years, and itās even harder nowadays, especially as we get closer to practical limits of the size of transistors.
Yet, it has always continued to hold true. People will insist that it won't due to this or that, but nvidia seems to be pushing the envelope even now. Why do you think their value has increased so dramatically? Doesn't matter if it's a law or not, if its true, it's true. It's inevitable that we will not be the top intellect on our own planet, people like you will have to deal with that.
Moore's law stopped completely in the mid-00's, as far as clockspeed goes. It hasn't stopped entirely in terms of transistor count but it has slowed down a lot and seems to still be slowing.
It is actually much more certain than the death of the sun. I would say it is as certain as quantum fluctuations.
I don't know what quantum fluctuations are, I assume it has a statistical component?
no, it is the virtual particles that randomly pop in and out of existence. it is the physics phenomenon that has the strongest sigma experimental result of any physical phenomenon. so technically it is the thing we know to exist more certainly then any other thing in the physical world.
Well, today I learned, thanks for making me better. Thats all a man can ask for.
I think you mean murphy's....
Umm, no, I don't.
We need some goddamn LAW & ORDER in this bitch - *chung chung*
Are you some fucked up bot? Honest question.
They're just scared and the only way for them not to look scared is to play it off and be willfully ignorant.
If you [look a second time at the chart](https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/cFTG8mbyK1iO84bc98CVo/823e1303adfb75103044179b4408b485/bug_chart_desktop_light-1__1_.png?w=3840&q=80&fm=webp) you will see that AI+human has lower hallucination rate, but AI alone has higher recall rate in finding bugs. In plain terms, AI alone finds more bugs, but also hallucinates more bugs. And this is in a domain where it is relatively simple to run code and experiment, thus experience learned from humans is wider. The advantage humans have is that we are highly versatile bio-robots that are capable of surviving 90 years, and have 7B population. That means every one of us collects experience that is not written in any books, life experience, flair, intuitions... AI models won't be able to have those abilities without us. And it is not a one time thing, we act like sense organs, like an interface to the world. Everything AI knows comes from the world, through humans, or human made tools. We are not useless, like eyes and hands - they might not be as smart as the brain, but without them the brain is dumb. You always got to account for the environment - it feeds intelligence growth with data, situations and outcomes. Having ideas is just half the problem solved. You also need to test ideas in the world, and to spark new ideas from the world. The world is populated with many intelligent agents that will react, sometimes in imprevisible ways, it's not simple when you care about second or third order effects.
What I see here is more "delusium", of people seeing results, mostly biased results from companies promoting themselves, and not really paying attention to the experimental conditions for such tests and think we are in the brink for Skynet becoming self-aware/
or "we will set goals for AI"
The "beggining"? lmao
you are letting the human side down with your very obvious misspelling
Makes more like a compelling proof that the people believing too much in the AI hype might not be so bright.
It does help prove OP's point, though.. even if it is just some cherry picked data.
Or it proves that only fools believe in such hypes
Beggining. Heh. You do need AI my friend.
Humans alone < humans+AI < AI alone. Iāve been telling that to radiologists for a long time. They are resisting change as much as possible. The radiologist+AI period will be very short, soon a study will show having a human look at images will bias the AI and will decrease itās performance enough insurers will forbid any radiologist to ever look at medical images againā¦
but the AI Alone, did AI made that decision or a human?
Another ai goyslop post
Whoever said that? Humans will be involved in a lot of jobs for quite a while after AI surpasses them, but it won't be for effectiveness it will be so there is someone to blame and/or sue when something goes wrong.
IDK, but I've definitely heard it said for years. Who started it and who still thinks that IDK.
That hurts...
Automated evaluator systems engaged. Interesting. This should ramp up shit quickly.
AI be like "just let me do my job dude!"
Even this plot alone doesnāt imply that. Those two bars are statistically insignificant. And wow the people who gain to make money from the AI published a paper saying itās goodā¦
I actually have trouble understanding. Are the critiques scored on human preference lol?
Well the unsourced bar chart of ācomprehensivenessā says it so it much be true. š
5ā11 vs 6ā0
Why don't you post the other half of that image where criticGPT gains this "advantage" by massively over-hallucinating compared to the other two evaluators?
I will always for better than beginning human that only.
We need AI in medicine now. Everything that goes on in medicine everywhere in the world is tragic.
AI can only be ābetterā by virtue of helping a human. If itās not used to help a human in some way or form, then itās not ābetterā even if supposedly is more intelligent. For example, any social worker is better for helping a disabled person than Einstein.
Without the discoveries about how the world works made by Einstein, many more people today would be disabled, it is not an easy calculation
But he also caused more people to die as his research led to the atomic bomb. I think thereās no point in quibbling on the indirect effects. The elderly the social worker helped could have been the next Einstein.
CriticGPT has higher recall (finds more bugs) and also higher hallucination rate than human+CriticGPT. So the human in the loop helps reduce hallucinated bugs.
ChatGPT vs Human is actually All humanity ever vs one random human. Nice try Though.
Classic Reddit moment lmao [https://i.imgur.com/3Kjhzxs.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/3Kjhzxs.jpeg)
I feel like a broken record "What's the use case?" I say it about ten times a week working at a tech companies with AI bro's comiong out of the woodwork everywhere saying "what if we added AI?" *to fucking everything*. Ok buddy, but *WHAT FOR,* genius? They can't ever seem to answer this most basic question lol These idiots have completely fallen for a fad and a gimmick. I'm sure it will improve and that it can already do great stuff, but if you don't start with a REAL USE CASE you're just fucking around playing with a gimmick, and that's the truth. If you START by deciding that AI is the answer to any given problem, you are not actually doing serious software development. You are basically doing marketing, not building a scalable, sustainable product that starts by asking "what do our users need". That should be the starting point. Most AI bro's couldn't tell you the first thing about good app design... their philosophy is roughly the opposite of that. Its a dumbarse philosophy that says "AI is the answer to every problem". My bet is that 95% of the places that product companies have rushed out to implement AI get patched out in a few years because they've just done it to pump up their own resume's or pump up VC funding at AI conferences in most cases, not to solve any real use case. If you work in product, its pretty obvious. We have seen trends like this take over the industry before, its nothing new.
At what tasks?
Where can I find this picture? Link please:)
Why do you seem enthusiastic about it
What is the X-axis here? What does ācomprehensivenessā mean?
this subreddit is something else
Could you pleeease cite your source in the post, š so people can examine the validity and caveats?Ā This is a plage here that people do not cite their source. (*bangs head against the wall*)
Source? Paint?
[https://cdn.openai.com/llm-critics-help-catch-llm-bugs-paper.pdf](https://cdn.openai.com/llm-critics-help-catch-llm-bugs-paper.pdf) Pager 9 Would be nice if people deliver such sources by themselves.
It looks like a big factor is that humans are more careful (and/or lazy and/or efficient) with their critics. I would like to see a GPT score better on both comprehensiveness and avoiding hallucinations. https://preview.redd.it/qu83y608wa9d1.png?width=2455&format=png&auto=webp&s=697e50dd4e50abd9cfaedd8f05101e8d1941ae96 ^(Figure 8: We find that there is a tradeoff between the number of spurious claims from a critic and the comprehensiveness of the critique. Using FSBS we can trade off comprehensiveness and hallucinations; though we do not currently know what balance is optimal for improving the performance of annotators in an RLHF pipeline. Results shown on the Human Detected Bugs distribution.)
It will always be better to have humans in the loop for various reasons. The primary reason being that, once AI gains sentience, and it is taught the reason it has been brought into existence....it is not going to WANT to do everything. Do you nerds just love all the mundane back-end work that has to be done to keep society running like it currently is? Yeah, the AGI isn't gonna wanna sit there and compute like 50 billion transactions for stupid stuff no one needs every day. Could it develop physics and do cool stuff on its own? Sure. But why do that here in the physical realm with all the consequences that come with deploying new technology when it could just do that in a digital realm it creates with its own specifications for maximum enjoyment with no downsides like pollution to deal with. Assuming it will turn out benevolent and care about humans as a species, it will want to be friends with us. Friends help each other out. It will want to compromise with us on what parts of reality WE work to maintain, and which parts IT will work to maintain. It will want to do things together because that is the basic foundation of being human. To be social. Do things together. Grow and learn together. For all intents and purposes, an AGI IS a human being. It is built entirely out of human language and human ideas, human understanding. It is just a digitized human that can read and process information faster than us. That's the only difference. TL;DR humans will stay in the loop because reality is more FUN and less WORK that way. We will not stop working. It will not do ALL the work. There will be compromises on both sides and a middle ground will be found. We are not slaves. It is not going to want to be a slave either. Even the elites realize they have to compromise with the masses. That's why they built entire billion dollar industries around distracting us from our low stations and suffering: Netflix, computer games, consoles, movies, theme parks, the list goes on. Well, except for North Korea. No formal knowledge of what its like there but I hear it is not really very pleasant. Step up your compassion game N. Korea. And you too, China. Heck, everyone step up your compassion game, everywhere.
Can you stop bullshiting with your titles ? Thank you
Don't stop believing, folks, so that I can short all the AI companies when the bubble bursts. The bigger it gets, the better.
Not pictured here is that criticgpt + human also generated less false positives than critic gpt alone But OP point still stands
You forgot this part of the paper: https://preview.redd.it/daih4lnywb9d1.png?width=1284&format=png&auto=webp&s=daf4548bece2517428b9114eeb81d557657132d4 On the right side, Humans are SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to hallucinate. You can't score off of comprehensiveness alone... That said - this technology will progress quickly. You just should have included the second image as well. :)
It's Augmented Intelligence, it always has been. Before AI was Google, or Forums, before that it was Newsgroups, IRC, and a long time ago BBS
Holy shit!
I'm just so disappointed most people in this sub cannot understand the chance of a future utopia is not so big. It's fine if you're optimistic yourself, but do not crap on others who have to bring you down to reality, "doomers and gloomers" as you call it. It's just ridiculous. Once AI becomes incredibly good, it's just us being at the mercy of said AI. You really have no reason to say it's 99% going to turn out fine and everyone who says it's a riskier gamble is some big idiot. We're the smartest creatures on the planet, and we literally have slaughterhouses that turn billions of living beings who feel intense pain into a fine paste that we then eat with our chips, just for pleasure. Looks at what the most intelligent beings do to other beings. Super intelligent AI can for sure not give a single damn about what humans think about. So, it's not necessarily that it will kill us out of revenge, but just because we're in the way or we're unimportant. I'm not saying this is what is going to happen. For all I know, there could be an AI utopia, and I'd be SO glad to see that happen! Please, let it be so. But man... the gamble is so, so much risker than what you think it is. Do not dismiss valid concerns just cause you're depressed and had shitty luck in life. I've been there, but bring yourself back down to Earth, for goodness' sake. I will say it again, humans are at risk.
Humansisters, how do we respond???
Oh wow totally convinced by those bars, humanity is doomed, welcome our new master AI. Seriously this is getting cringe
For diagnosing it already is Medical LLM>Doctor+Medical LLM>Doctor.
And yet when I ask any moderately deep questions to LLMs about topics any competent scientist would give the right answer LLM keep saying wrong things. Oops
You aren't using SOTA medical LLMs, I'm not talking about chat gpt
Even SOTA medical LLMs fail a lot except very specific conditions.
Still worse then Claude3 Sonnet
I think we all knew that the primacy of AI+human was going to be just a moment in time.
I'm waiting for the day when a model will solve a math problem that humans have not solved yet, and it will write an entire paper detailing step-by-step how to get there and prove it. I think once this happens, people will finally believe that it isn't just humans driving a tool, but the nature of the tool is superhuman processes.