It makes me wonder if the AI successfully found and digested obscure sources on the internet or was just better at making sense of the esoteric documentation than me. If the latter, perhaps the need for public samples will diminish.
But it takes so long and so much prompting skill to get to that point that the use cases seem limited.
We absolutely need public sources of truth at the very least until we can build systems that actually reason based on a combination of first principles and experience, and even then we need sources of truth for experience.
You simply cannot create solutions to new problems if your data gets too old to encompass the new subject matter. We have so systems which can adequately determine fact from fiction, and new human experiences will always need to be documented for machines to understand them.
and to be clear - as a layman, (in almost every field) I've recognized that llm's weren't up to the challenge of disavowing that notion from my phd friends up until o1 and never even tried, even though I've 'believed' since gpt 2
Any time I tried some of the more complex prompts I was working through something with Sonnet or 4o, o1 would totally miss important points and ignore a lot of the instructions while going really deep trying to figure out some relatively basic portions of the prompt.
Seems fine for reasonably simple prompts, but gets caught up when things get deeper.
The way I am connecting external content to the epub is through an anchoring system -- sequences of words can be hashed to form unique ids that are referenced by the enhancement. Doing this lets me index the enhancement content in such a way that is format-independent and doesn't require modifying the underlying epub.
The specific task o1 helped me with was determining what the text is visible at any given point in time. This text is then turned into hashes to pull the relevant enhancement content.
Getting the current words on the page doesn't seem all that complex, but the epub.js API is pretty confusing. There are abstractions like "Rendition", "Location", "Contents", "Range", and it's not always intuitive which of these will provide the appropriate methods. I'm sure I would have figured it out eventually by looking at the API docs, but GPT probably saved me and hour or two of trial-and-error.
My mom and grandma also read books with a physical notebook handy, and seems like modern technology should make that unnecessary.
I was laid off as part of the massive layoffs in 2022 and made a first pass at the project. I didn't use epubjs and instead wasted a lot of time making a custom rendering engine -- this was dumb. Eventually I got another job and paused the project. I started again in earnest a month or so ago using epubjs as the base.
hmm having a sort of mini-forum-like experience tied to particular pages in a book seems like a fascinating idea! being able to discuss plot twists and such only once you've already gotten to that point?
wow this seems like an amazing idea actually! any names yet? I'd love to check it out once it's done!
Obviously, not a given, but not unreasonable given what we have seen historically.
why would it be lucrative? The person paying would consider whether they'd get locked in to the framework/language, and be held hostage by the creator(s). This is friction to adoption. So LLMs will make popular, corporate backed languages/frameworks even more popular and drown out the small ones.
Scarcity of some knowledge. Not all knowledge exists on SO. You are right about the popular stuff, but the niche stuff will be like everything else niche, harder to get and thus more expensive. COBOL is typically used as an example of this, but COBOL was at least documented. I am saying this, because, while I completely buy that there will be executives who will attempt to do this, it won't be so easy to rewrite it all like Jassy from Amazon claims ( or more accurately, it will be easy, but with exciting new ways for ATMs, airlines and so on to mess with one's day).
<< The person paying would consider whether they'd get locked in
I want to believe a rational actor would do that. It makes sense. On the other hand, companies and people sign contracts that lock them in all the time to all sorts of things and for myriad of reasons including, but not limited to being wined and dined.
Again, I think you are right about the trend ( as it will exacerbate already existing issues ), but wrong about the end result.
Most of this "knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms" is NOT creative activity. It's endless questions about the same issues everyone is having except the system developers themselves. Much of this is just displacing search platforms.
Published documentation.
I'm going to make up a number but I'll defend it: 90% of the information content of stackoverflow is regurgitated from some manual somewhere. The problem is that the specific information you're looking for in the relevant documentation is often hard to find, and even when found is often hard to read. LLMs are fantastic at reading and understanding documentation.
From personal experience, I'm skeptical of the quantity and especially quality of published documentation available, the completeness of that documentation, the degree to which it both recognizes and covers all the relevant edge cases, etc. Even Apple, which used to be quite good at that kind of thing, has increasingly effectively referred developers to their WWDC videos. I'm also skeptical of the ability of the LLMs to ingest and properly synthesize that documentation - I'm willing to bet the answers from SO and Reddit are doing more heavy lifting on shaping the LLM's "answers" than you're hoping here.
There is nothing in my couple decades of programming or experience with LLMs that suggests to me that published documentation is going to be sufficient to let an LLM produce sufficient quality output without human synthesis somehwere in the loop.
I've answered dozens of questions on stackoverflow.com with tags like SIMD, SSE, AVX, NEON. Only a minority of these asked for a single SIMD instruction which does something specific. Usually people ask how to use the complete instruction set to accomplish something higher level.
Documentation alone doesn't answer questions like that, you need an expert who actually used that stuff.
For me, the current state of affairs is the difficulty of aiming search engines to the right answer. The answer might be out there, but figuring out HOW t oask the questions, which are the right keywords, etc - basically requires knowing where the answer is. LLMs have potential in rephrasing boththe question and what they might have glanced at here and there - even if obvious in hindsight.
Nothing will ever replace your own critical thinking and judgment.
> At least when discussing with real people after the arrows fly and the dust settles, we can figure out the truth.
You can actually do that with AI now. I have been able to correct AI many times via a Socratic approach (where I didn't know the correct answer, but I knew the answer the AI gave me was wrong).
yes, a lot of stuff is like that, and LLMs are a good replacement for searching the docs; but the most useful SO answers are regarding issues that are either not documented or poorly documented, and someone knows because they tried it and found what did or did not work
{/* rest of your functions here*} - DELETED
After a while it's only safe for doing tedious things like loops and switches.
So I guess our jobs are safe for a little while longer
Like "Help me to do this and that and use this list of internet resources to answer my questions"
Even limiting yourself to code generation, there are going to be a lot of software developers employed to write or generate code examples and documentation just for AIs to ingest.
I think eventually AIs will begin coding in programming languages that are designed for AI to understand and work with and not for people to understand.
The sheer difference in scale between the domain of “here are all the people in the world that have shared data publicly until now” and “here is the relatively tiny population of people being paid to add new information to an LLM” dooms the LLM to become outdated in an information hoarding society. So, the question in my mind is, “Why will people keep producing public information just for it to be devalued into LLMs?”
If you mean obfuscation, then yeah, maybe that makes sense to fit more into the window. But it’s easy to unobfuscate, usually.
Otherwise, I‘m not sure what the goal of an LLM specific language could be. Because I don’t feel most languages have been made purely to accommodate humans anyway, but they balance a lot of factors, like being true to the metal (like C) or functional purity (Haskell) or fault tolerance (Erlang). I‘m not sure what „being for LLMs“ could look like.
Seems like the humans using it can be also training and effectively paying for the right to do so? I would guess this could be easily gamified.
E.g. you can't just synthetically generate code, something or someone needs to run it and see if it performs the functions you actually asked of it.
You need to feed the LLM output into some kind of formal verification system, and only then add it back to the synthetic training dataset.
Here, for example - dumb recursive training causes model collapse:
I suspect most foundational models are now knowingly trained on at least some synthetic data.
I don't see how you can "bootstrap a smarter model" based on synthetic data from a previous-gen model this way. You may as well well just train your new model on the original training data.
The Information in the data isn't just about the output but its rate of occurrence/distribution. If what your base model has learnt is only enough to have the occasional flash of brilliance say 1 out of 40 responses and you are able to filter out these responses and generate as much as you like then you can very much 'bootstrap a better model' by training on these filtered results. You are only getting a function of the model's parameters if you train on its unfiltered, unaltered output.
Interesting - I actually think they perform quite well on code, considering that code has a set of correct answers (unlike most other tasks we use LLMs for on a daily basis). GitHub Copilot had a 30%+ acceptance rate (https://github.blog/news-insights/research/research-quantify...). How often does one accept the first answer that ChatGPT returns?
To answer your first question: new content is still being created in an LLM-assisted way, and a lot of it can be quite good. The rate of that happening is a lot lower than that of LLM-generated spam - this is the concerning part.
I agree, LLMs performance for coding tasks is super biased in favor of well-represented languages. I think this is what GitHub is trying to solve with custom private models for Copilot, but I expect that to be enterprise only.
There is plenty of data even without QA forums.
Unlike freeform writing tasks, coding also has a strong feedback loop (i.e. does the code compile, run successfully, and output a result?), which means it is probably easier to generate synthetic training data for models.
I doubt it. Take a language like Rust or Haskell or even modern Java or Python. Without prolonged experience with the language, you have no idea how the various features interact in practice, what the best practices and typical pitfalls are, what common patterns and habits have been established by its practitioners, and so on. At best, the system would have to simulate building a number of nontrivial systems using the language in order to discover that knowledge, and in the end it would still be like someone locked in a room without knowledge of how the language is actually applied in the real world.
Cousin of the sufficiently smart compiler? :-p
This underlying societal problem has knock-on effects just like chilling effects on free speech, but these effects we talk about are much more pernicious.
To understand, you have to know something about volunteer work, and what charity is. Charity is intended to help others who are doing poorly, at little to no personal benefit to you, to improve their circumstances. Its gods work, there is very little expectation involved on the giver. Its not charity if you are forced to give.
When you give something to someone as charity, and then that someone, or an observing third-party related to that charity extorts you and attempts to coerce you for more. What do you think the natural inclination is going to be?
There is now additional coercive personal cost attached to that which was not given freely; what naturally happens. This is theft.
Volunteer psychology says, you stop giving when it starts costing you more than you were willing to give. Those costs may not be monetary, in many cases they are personal, and many people who give often vet those who they are giving to so as to help good people rather than enable evil people. LLM's make no distinction.
Less people give, but that is not all. Less people who are intelligent give anything. They withdraw their support. Where the average person in society was once pulled up to higher forms of thought by those with intelligence and a gift for conveying thought, that vanishes as communication vanishes. From that point forward, the average is pulled only to baser and baser forms of thought and the average people seem like the smartest people in the room though that feeling is flawed (because they aren't that intelligent).
The exchange for charity is often I'll help you here, and you are obligated to use it to get yourself into a better position so you can help both yourself and other people along the way. Paying it forward if you can. Charity is wasted on those that would use what is given to support destructive and evil acts.
There are types of people who will just take until no more can be given which is a type of evil, which is why you need to vet people beforehand but an LLM is simply a programmatic implementation of taking. The entire idea of a robot worker replacing low-mid level jobs during limits of growth is one that seems enticing from the short-sighted producer side except it ends up stalling economic activity. Economies run through an equal exchange between two groups. The moment there is no exchange because money isn't being provided for labor, products can't be bought. Shortages occur, unrest, usually slavery then death when production systems for food break down.
We are already seeing this disruption in jobs in the Tech sector that is 5 times the national unemployment during peak hiring (where offpeak has hiring freezes), in a single year. When you can't keep talent, that talent has options and goes elsewhere, either contributing within the economy or creating their own (black markets). ECP in non-market socialist systems (like what we are about to have in about 5 years), guarantees a lot of death or slavery.
People volunteer to help others, if someone then uses those conversations to create a humunculus that steals that knowledge and gives it to anyone that asks, even potentially terrorist or other evil actors, no one who worked for the expertise will support that.
Inevitably it also means someone will use that same thing to replace those expert jobs entry level portions with a machine that can't reason, and no new candidates can get the experience to become an expert. Its a slow descent into an age of ruin that ends in collapse.
You end up with cyclical chaotic spirals of economic stagnation, followed by shortage, followed by slavery or death from starvation; no AGI needed. All that's needed is imposing arbitrary additional cost on those least able to bear it. Interference in the job market, making it impossible to find work, gender relations (making it impossible to couple up and have babies), political relations (that drive greater government and control at the same time limiting any future). Its dystopian but its becoming a reality because of evil people in positions that allow front-of-line blocking to course correct continue their evil work; and they are characteristically wllfully blind to the destructive acts they perform and the consequences.
There are a lot of low pay jobs that will just vanish, people don't have enough money to raise children as it is; old crowds out the new until finally, a great dying occurs. That is the future if we don't stop it and resolve the changes that were made (as the bridges were burnt) by the current generation in political power. They should have peaked in power in 95, exited in 2005-2010. They still hold the majority and its 2024 (30 years after taking power). They'll die of old age soon, and because they were the only ones that knew all the changes that were made, new bridges will have to be built from scratch with less knowledge, resources, goodwill/trust, and people. They claimed they wanted a better world for their children, while creating a hellscape for them instead made of lies and deceit.
Very few people are taught specifically what the social contract entails. Its well past time people learn, lest they end up being the supporting cause of their own destruction.
Thomas Paine's Rights of Man has a lot of good points on this.
Your first argument largely rests on this, but isn't the fact that so many LLM-created answers get posted actually proof of the opposite? The LLM is, after all, "giving" here - and it's not like those answers are useless, just because they're made by an LLM. LLMs are perfectly capable of giving good answers to a large number of common tech support questions, and are therefore ("voluntarily") helping people.
> We are already seeing this disruption in jobs in the Tech sector that is 5 times the national unemployment during peak hiring (where offpeak has hiring freezes), in a single year. [...] Inevitably it also means someone will use that same thing to replace those expert jobs entry level portions with a machine that can't reason, and no new candidates can get the experience to become an expert. Its a slow descent into an age of ruin that ends in collapse.
This is your other argument, which is slightly more solid - I think that at least in the short term, we are going to see many of those effects. But overall, this dystopian "collapse" scenario is economically naive, for at least two reasons:
1. As it becomes harder to enter professions requiring high degrees of specializiation as the entry-level positions dry up, the demand for real specialists in these fields increases accordingly. At some point, it becomes viable for new talent to enter those sectors even in the face of a low number of "true" entry-level positions, as there is now an incentive to accept a much steeper upfront cost in terms of time invested on learning the specialization. If there are jobs that can at all be done and that pay 500,000$ per year, somebody is going to do them.
2. And I mean, besides, the entire "ECP in non-market socialist systems [...] guarantees a lot of death or slavery" argument is plain wrong. ("Pure ideology! *sniffs*"). We already live in a post-market capitalist society. Amazon controls enough market share in a large number of sectors that their operating model resembles Soviet-style demand planning when calculating how much produce to order (that is, order to manufacture). The Economic Calculation Problem, in the age of computers, is solved. We are not playing with abacuses anymore.
At least the USSR's ideology claimed to represent the worker's interest, and so once that stopped happening in practice, the system collapsed. (And they were already in the age of computers, trying to do some of the first cybernetics.)
For the amount of responsibility to get things right, you now have jobs that have significantly less responsibilities or entry skills that are now competing with the same positions thanks to inflation. Who would bother signing up for that stress for no economic benefit when they can get any number of other jobs at 3/4 of the pay and none of the responsibility. This type of chaos is what you've discounted as not happening (ECP).
> The economic calculation problem ... is solved
Then why are we having chaotic disruptions, in growing frequency and amplitude, continually more concentrated business sectors based in Lenin's comments on attacking capitalism through debauching currency through inflation as he mentioned to Keynes (towards non-market socialism), and more importantly shortages that are starting to self-sustain at the individual level.
When common food goods are not getting replenished on a weekly basis, and they are 2-3x the normal price, there is an issue. When it hits 2-3 weeks it starts to compound as demand skyrockets for non-discretionary goods (and they can't keep up). Goods sell out almost immediately (as they have been more recently), and people start hoarding (which they are doing again with TP).
You don't seem to realize this is the problem in action. It is hardly solved, we aren't even to the non-market part yet and we are far enough along to see that chaos is increasing, distortions are increasing, and shortages are increasing and not being corrected within JIT shipping schedules.
Those three observations are cause for concern to stop and lookaround because chaos is a major characteristic of the ECP. Moving goods around doesn't perform economic calculation, and soviet-style demand planning failed historically once shortages occurred, the next things coming up in the near future is sustaining shortage and death from famine. India stopped exporting its food because they see this on the horizon and have a intimate history with famine.
The 1921 famine (bolshevik non-market) reduced national population by 4% YOY and dropped the birthrate negative; Mao killed off more than 33+ million during his non-market stint which caused famine. No accurate numbers to draw up a percentage YOY but it was significant.
Every single non-market socialist state has failed in the history of socialism, and that includes its derivatives. Its not appropriate to call it ideology when there is a historic record where not even a single non-market state exists today. The fact that they all had to have markets tied to capitalist states to get their prices shows the gravity of the issue, and now that the last capitalist state is falling to non-market socialism (through intentional design/sabotage), what do you suppose is going to happen to all those market-socialist countries that can no longer get their price data. Its already happening, and chaos is unpredictable; and inflation/deflation measures are limited in resolution (as a high hysteresis problem).
Non-market socialist states run into the slavery and death part, but you are not recognizing that, and discounting it because it hasn't happened to us yet (though its likely within 5 years for a point of no return), and it has happened to every non-market system.
The point of no return to non-market socialism is when debt growth exceeds GDP (outflows exceed inflows). This is structural of any ponzi scheme. Who decides, the producers. This is when rational producers abandon the market, and start shutting down because its no longer possible to make a profit in terms of purchasing power. From there its a short but inevitable jaunt to collapse.
Have you noticed that China's stimulus through printing isn't doing much? Every printing requires exponentially greater amounts, with diminishing returns.
I think you've sorely confused objective observation with ideology and discounted it without taking into account the factors rationally; these are factors showing a clear and present danger to all existing market-socialist states, as well as those capitalist bastions that will be pulled down in the near future from ongoing subversion.
Amazon doesn't produce, its a logistics company. Shortages self-sustain because producers are leaving the market, we saw this first with baby formula in 2020 when the last producer was closed, but what's coming will leave only state-run capacity for most sectors and industry.
Most knowledgeable people know these systems are brittle and parasitic and aren't capable of ECP for a myriad of already written and rational reasons by themselves.
Socialist production absent a market, doesn't work without slave labor. It doesn't even work longer-term either with slave labor because of inefficiencies at current population don't scale well with tech levels.
You might be fine claiming everything is fine now, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary that things are getting progressively worse, and will continue down that path because of these consequences, but what about in 5 years when you can't get food. Will it matter then, when you can't do anything about it, because the time to do something came and passed?
You think the Elites in China don't know this is going to happen? They are pushing so hard for the BRICS because they know this is going to happen, because they helped cause it in their dogmatic and blind fervor and orchestration.
Name one modern real non-market socialist state that exists today that has not failed, and I'll be willing to consider your last statement. As far as I know, none exist and that should frighten every single person today because that is where we are going whether we like it or not (as a function of system dynamics).
Your focus on the false dichotomy between state action and private action makes me want to go tongue-in-cheek and name France. Definitely a non-market socialist state.
And for the record, I do agree that everything will get progressively worse, for ideological and for material reasons. But in both cases for different reasons than you suggest. The unholy marriage of extreme concentrations of wealth and the reemergence of fascism has been blessed with many children, but the Musks, Murdochs, Kochs and Thiels of this world will have little recourse against an economic reality wrecked by climate change, the drying up of fossil fuels and the bitter demographic outlook.
Still though, you see high concentration, loss of jobs, high unemployment, all classic signs often seen in socialist states right before major calamity or outright failure.
I'd say though the France won't have gotten to non-market socialism until their primary underlying currency hits those milestones, but they will see the chaos much sooner when the shoe does drop.
It’s helpful to realize the ways in which we do work the same way as AI, because it gives us perspective unto ourselves.
(I don’t follow regarding your true and false statement, and I don’t share your apparent pessimism about the fundamental limits of AI.)