this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
118 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
147 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yup.
They also correctly identify the function of LLMs as a glue between siloed AIs. We have barely seen the beginning of that, but as the AI race continues, it seems likely that some LLM models will be created that will have less human language, and more "interop language". Where nowadays LLMs can be somewhat probed for words and relationships, we'll have zero chance to probe an LLM using tokens that are part of some made up (by the AIs) interop language. Black boxes inside black boxes.
A naive approach will be to "democratize AI", and that will surely be better than centralized AIs responding to every query... but won't solve the deepening of inscrutability.
One point made me chuckle: when they showed the graphs for cualitative jumps above certain network size. Recently someone commented about the "diminishing returns" and "asymptotic growth" of making a LLM larger and larger... but also so it was in these models: diminishing returns all the way up to a point... followed by a sudden exponential jump until the next asymptote. The truth is we don't know where the asymptotes and exponential jumps lie, we don't even have a remote hypothesis about it.