I don't mean to be so dark... it is just I get so worried about the future. It might be age, it might be that i clawed my way to a tiny bit of stability. Things could be great, I actually have seen you in a few threads and you always say the same thing that you love programming because you can focus on global ideas now. That to me sounds fun too. I like both. I am just worried you need less of those people which means more unemployment. For me when I say programming is ripped from me I mean it in all sense of the word.
Ah I did say they were proofs... that is my fault, what I mean to say is that formalization is the way they are written, is very much a language. Either way. Not sure where the venom was coming from
I never said they were proofs right? I am still confused. I was talking about foramalizing and how at least to me I see programming in it. Even something extremely complex like "The Strong Perfect Graph Theorem" is still readable and reads like english+programming. That's why I said haskell looks like it comes out of a discrete mathbook. I am not sure what your point is or where my fetishization is coming from.
We might have different definitions my good sir. Granted I don't have a PhD in math and my math stopped at a masters. To me formalization is theorems and proofs, which are 100% comprehensible to humans. For reference: http://www.vdash.org/formal/#math
Everything in that link looks like programming, especially when you consider something like Haskell. Even formalism as a philosophy tries to add logic to natural language it self. So I am not sure where I am fetishizing what I saw at university. Care to explain without the snark?
Just to play with the logic a bit. I could see natural language coming up with formal templating to get something closer to a programming language. Not like how we speak will change, but more like how a haiku works is formalized. Similarly to how every CS1 class in university has people who do the "write the steps in making a sandwich" exercise. That exercise is actually easier in a programming language, because of the nature of what a programming language is, its instructions in steps at the end of the day. So perhaps something is formalized that way? Also most modern languages have been slowly adding in things that are easier to read from a natural language perspective VS classical C syntax style. Rust is very C-like but still has plenty of FP like functions built in too.
Yeah. The first time I saw Haskell written out, it felt like a blending of formal math and programming. I was really excited at how it looks like it could have come from my discrete math book. I don't think programming in english is a good idea, but like you said, we will probably get something that looks more like formal languages, because that's what we've always done.
When I made this comparison I was trashed in the comments. Not at the hyperbole of it (I don't think it is), that they are in poverty now while we are not. That we should have saved money. Which, shocker, not all of us work in California with those salaries... At this point as a SWE my only goal is to try and find IT employment to support loved ones and keep my visa till I get permanent residence. Fuck everything, just survive at this point. I loved programming, if that is ripped from me, then survive is all I want to do. That or jump in front of a train.
I feel a lot like you do some days. I am really confused and anxiety driven about a lot of things since AI became the hot button issue. Not sure why this is being flagged and downvoted. It's logically fine. I'd rather hear arguments instead.
"I don't think it's a threat. I think it's a benefit. People can find better things to do with their life than work for a living... Pretty much every job involving paperwork should be automatable."
How the fuck does he expect me to pay rent. Sure there might be some things I'd rather do than work, but uhh that work allows me to do those things.
I've been really shocked at the pure clickbait from BI, it's been insane since GPT made mainstream. Every other article is about how AI is taking tech jobs (which is also ironic as is a journalist isn't on the theoretical chopping block too).
Again I could be a massive idiot, but as I see it? For certain things yes 100%. When it comes to low level things, currently an LLM has no way to confirm behavior of something that doesn't give feedback. The FairPlay example I gave requires you to actually play a video with DRM. Another example I can think of are debouncing buttons on a microcontroller based device. As a super basic example but if you are working on an IoT device and require to know when a pin needs to be debounced, that can only sometimes be found under an oscilloscope. However an open source device could be policed with human-to-human interaction. In fact, I have done so making a PR a long long time ago for a crypto wallet that was open sourced. There are all anecdotal examples, I still see a need for at some level a human to enter the loop, however in a disaster scenario if it becomes unviable to run sites like SO then you slowly lose hubs for that knowledge base.
No? Maybe if they reach human levels of sensory and cognition. For example, again, my FairPlay problem. On iOS 16 there is a timing issue when DRM can be ingested, but this isn’t documented from apple and it is kind of a rare problem. If I ask Bing right now, which is connected to the internet. It gives you links to a human stackoverflow. How would an LLM know about this timing issue? The source code looks fine, there is no compiler error, there are no crashes. There IS sometimes just a video that is not playable in AVPlayer.
The problem I think I’m not conveying correctly is human to human discovery is made easier with communication hubs like SO. With something like an LLM if that reduces the viability for economically running a site like SO. Is there a gap or period where we don’t see that easy human to human communication? Eventually new generated content from a human has to enter the loop until the AI is up to a level where it can replace humans, but if we see less and less human generated content being viable then we have a clear chicken or the egg problem for new training data
If it is a community effort yes. Yes we are. That’s the idea of SO. It’s a community effort. Highly flawed and elitist yes, but the theory is it is community policed.
That still doesn’t answer my question on human to human discovery. Say a site like SO disappears because it’s not viable economically to keep it running. Then having something that scrapes the internet doesn’t seem to help does it? Like a quirk in hardware that a human notices, documents, fixes. Something low level.
The “why” is another great example too. When you document something you try to do so with some way of showing intent as well. While LLMs are so amazing (really). There is still a lot that I get curious about how it can be effectively used.
Maybe, however there seems to be a limit to that no? I’m not talking about errors that are fixed or factual information. More like discoveries, ex: the FairPlay issue wasn’t documented from Apple it was discovered by multiple users who found and solved the issue I had. How does something like that exist with an LLM? There wasn’t really an error message that told you what to look for. It was a community effort of trial and error. Stackoverflow is nice because of the collaboration that can go on.
Maybe I’m slow and stupid, can someone explain to me how new things will be introduced to new forms of LLMs if it all slowly becomes replaced by LLMs? It seems a bit like an ouroboros of human generated content consumption.
Also, SO is flawed that’s without a doubt, but it still even in the age of LLMs been really useful to answer questions that are somewhat tangential not pure code. I was having a problem with FairPlay DRM for live streaming with iOS 16 and SO had something to point me in the right direction. Chatgpt being trained on older data didn’t have the answer. What happens in the future???
I personally think the same as the other comment. Do you really think money is the bottleneck? Let’s assume Sam Altman felt that way. He couldn’t drum up that cash tomorrow if he wanted??? For the pinnacle of human invention. Twitter was purchased for way way more than 50 mil.
I have no idea. Probably not. The philosophy is a deep rabbit hole. A fun one to ponder, and I like having that discussion. Maybe the more cynical pragmatic old man swe that I am sees a super powerful calculator kind of. It’s very very cool, and obviously I can’t hold a conversation with a calculator but my analogy is more to say my calculator can do really complex integrals and even show its steps kind of! Especially for my handy TI-89. It was my best friend for all of engineering undergrad. I see chatgpt as a steroid version of that for all of Language. Code is another language, writing is a language, painting in some ways is a language.
What does a better LLM mean? We again… already have terminal usage in AutoGPT. It describes a little what you are talking about. What measurement do you use to test if a language model 1 is better than 2? Accuracy? Self reliance? Is that what a Transformer should be doing? Sure an LLM can compete with humans on all of those tasks. Fantastic. So are we at the singularity now as it’s defined? Do I quit my job now?
I don’t see that in this specific case for one thing or how we are closer from before. Code generation and auto correction getting closer is very cool, the singularity needs to be spelled out for me how a tool making a tool will get us there. How does that solve all of the hurdles that go into AGI or the singularity. How does it change a large language model.
God damn the down votes. I agree with your overall thesis I don’t personally know what intelligence means. However it’s just a tool even if it is AI or whatever you want to label it. It’s extremely cool and powerful too. It scares the shit out of me as well. However I think we are also taking the hype to 11/10 when it should be much lower out of 10 than that…
Could you explain in detail how that causes the singularity? I’m lost. I saw a cool tool used to make another cool tool. You saw the singularity. Where is this logic coming from? Why would terminal access which I’m fairly certain I’ve seen in autogpt, change much.
If you really do feel that way. Honest non troll question. Why not quit? There still seems plenty of software work even if there was a feedback loop in the workflow. However if you feel we’ve wrote our selves out why not do something more physical. Not to sound snarky.
I’m not the only one who thinks there is something missing though. That simplification does work to show how to get from A to B, but I don’t think it is analogous when we don’t really understand how we go to human intelligence. None of us were there. All I am saying is that simplifying even mammalian intelligence down to just an LLM doesn’t explain much to me. It might be the case that old 70s math proofs from NASA evolve into a mechanical intelligence maybe? I just personally think that isn’t the case. Humans run on a lot less overall power (though biological necessities like bathrooms and food are real), we also can learn even from less text than a machine and infer from experience. That might not convince you, or you might have your own ideas about what intelligence is.
I’m not saying they can’t show intelligence. I am saying that the techniques are very old, throwing more hardware seems to have done wonders. It’s been surprising to see how far it’s come. I don’t think that simplifying intelligence in humans and saying we are LLMs helps the conversation. That along with that these techniques being used while they’ve clearly been improved are fairly old. From an engineering standpoint it leaves me wondering if there are not more elegant solutions. That nature actually is fairly cool, it doesn’t help the convo to downplay wetware I think.
That wasn’t the case at all for fusion. It is that to be viable different scientific breakthroughs in particle physics, and lasers. Especially to the point where the demo recently showed the viability of it. If you read up on it you’ll see that there was a lot of important steps that lead up to the short demo that was achieved. That is my point though, if you read the article even after the ellipses it wasn’t a monetary issue.
That is actually a really interesting find. Some of the verbiage is parallel to the hype we have around AGI right now too "fusion by 1990 instead of 2000..." does that not sound exactly like AGI in X year up from Y year that we read now?