Hacker News Reader

Comment by hooande | Hacker News Reader

two thoughts

People love to say "it's early" and "it will improve" about ChatGPT. but amount of training data IS the dominant factor in determining the quality of the output, usually in logarithmic terms. it's already trained on the entire internet. it's hard to see how they'll be able to significantly increase that.

And having models build models is drastically overrated. again, the accuracy/quality improvements are largely driven by the scale and diversity of the dataset. that's like 90% of the solution to any ml problem. choosing the right model and parameters is often a minor relative improvement

View on HN

Perhaps some sort of adversarial network approach could work better; models that learn to generate text and other models that try to distinguish AIs from humans, competing against each other. Also, children learning language benefit from constant feedback from people who have their best interest at heart ... that last part is important because of episodes like Microsoft's Tay where 4chan folks thought it would be fun to turn the chatbot into a fascist.

I think OpenAI has already published some research showing humans preferred smaller/fewer parameter models that were "better trained" through the use of human feedback.

If there were a model that could adequately replace the role of the human, then that approach would probably work well.

Passing the Turing test isn't the goal. You can have a useful model that isn't human like and can have a useless model that you can't tell isn't a human.

Certainly. Approaches that have done better on the Turing test have used various tricks to avoid their lack of understanding, like playing a paranoid person. But some of the best chatbots give themselves away by getting stuck in a loop or demonstrating lack of basic intuition about the world that a three year old would have. Those things perhaps could be caught.

The data is the bottleneck for the current generation of models. Better models/training strategies could very well change that in the next couple of decades.

All the books. I think books might be better

There's only about 100m books (in English). About the same volume of text as the web all total.

Generally a book has deeper thinking than a webpage, though, I think that’s the crux of the GP’s clarification.

And the distribution of text will be very different for all books vs the internet.

Yes.

And (with scary privacy implications) maybe the next frontier is capturing all spoken language uttered by people in real-time and streaming it into a model that is being updated in near-real-time.

And finally brain implants extracting unspoken thoughts and neural activity and combining it all. Extend it to non human life forms as well. (universal consciousness?)

It's the future where everyone is a universal captcha solver for the needs of the Great AI. No freedom even in your thoughts.

Well, diffusion networks seemed to work because they increased the amount of data by training so many examples of added noise and it’s removal. Some similar approach might be possible with text, too. Or, i guess they will talk to itself, like alpha go played itself.

> it's hard to see how they'll be able to significantly increase that.

With feedback.

Yes. Which is why ChatGPT is open to public.

The next phase has got to be more and more private data sets that don't exist on the internet: Homes with Alexa, Ok Google, etc.. Beyond that, linkages into a human brain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com