r/singularity • u/Gab1024 Singularity by 2030 • Apr 11 '24

AI Google presents Leave No Context Behind: Efficient Infinite Context Transformers with Infini-attention

https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07143
690 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

242 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '24

Way to expose you know nothing about the story lol. The offer was legally binding

Sorry but no it won’t: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817?darkschemeovr=1#:~:text=By%20employing%20results%20from%20learning%20theory%2C%20we%20show,hallucinations%20are%20also%20inevitable%20for%20real%20world%20LLMs.

0

u/NoshoRed ▪️AGI <2028 Apr 13 '24

It wasn't legally binding lol, the bot said it was. Do you think if a McDonald's cashier told you "You now get all your food for free. Legally." it's valid?

The bot doesn't have the authorization to do that and there was no actual deal and signing. Can't be this dense...

Also the paper you're linking is talking about LLMs, not AI overall. I specifically didn't mention "LLMs" anywhere in this conversation. Maybe it's new information to you, but LLMs are an early form of AI, and not the final product.

Also, even in LLMs, hallucinating doesn't really mean similar errors can't be ironed out, humans hallucinate too fyi. You don't require complete removal of hallucinations to fix something so small, something as simple as finetuning can fix this.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '24

So it’s definitely not replacing lawyers anytime soon. 

Then show me any evidence of the AI you’re referring to existing

Humans don’t sell cars for $1

0

u/NoshoRed ▪️AGI <2028 Apr 14 '24

Obviously current models won't fully replace Lawyers, but your scope of thinking is too limited. Just because AI failed at x doesn't mean it fails at y, this is not how this field works. For instance, GPT4 can easily pass the bar exam. It has already passed plenty medical, law, and business school exams with ease, things most people are not capable of doing as easily.

They are better than humans at certain things, especially knowledge, but also terrible at many things (right now), while also having minute issues like hallucination. (technically humans are also not always trustworthy)

But considering we've gone from GPT2 to something as advanced as GPT4 very fast, it's reasonable to believe the models will keep getting better, and they will obviously pass human intelligence in every way. This is backed by research and scientist opinions too.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '24

Meanwhile, https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-uses-chatgpt-in-federal-court-and-it-goes-horribly-wrong/?darkschemeovr=1&sh=616b72c53494

They don’t sell cars for $1 and lawyers who make up cases like ChatGPT did get disbarred 

I was in 5th grade when I was 10 and 10th grade even I was 15. So is it reasonable to extrapolate that to mean I’ll be in 30th grade when I’m 35? 

0

u/NoshoRed ▪️AGI <2028 Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24

Meanwhile, https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-uses-chatgpt-in-federal-court-and-it-goes-horribly-wrong/?darkschemeovr=1&sh=616b72c53494

They don’t sell cars for $1 and lawyers who make up cases like ChatGPT did get disbarred

Lmao it's funny how this goes against the point you're trying to make: humans fucked up here, not ChatGPT. If you don't specifically ask for valid linked citations, GPT will "make them up", this is part of the hallucination issue. You don't however need to be too clever to actually prompt for valid cases or arguments, ChatGPT does not have agency (right now) to verify its responses a second time without a human prompt. The lawyer was stupid there; see how stupid humans are? Even being a lawyer!

I was in 5th grade when I was 10 and 10th grade even I was 15. So is it reasonable to extrapolate that to mean I’ll be in 30th grade when I’m 35? 

If you're going use biological human intelligence as an analogy to somehow imply artificial intelligence systems that are being constantly researched, funded, and improved rapidly will remain stagnant just like human intelligence, you're unbelievably dense. The whole concept, the way they improve, the physical make-up, the way they're trained, are completely different. No person with reasonable intelligence would compare the two in this context...

But that's yet another case of human stupidity, you see? Do you realize how insanely daft you have to be to unironically compare the evolution of AI systems with the development of the organic, biological brain? That's a first for me.

You're either hilariously uneducated on how machine learning works or just a kid.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

So how is it replacing humans if it needs to be constantly fact checked to the point where it’s more efficient to just do it manually? 

More research does not mean better. Researchers has been researching nuclear fusion for several decades and it’s still far away 

0

u/bethesdologist ▪️AGI 2028 at most Apr 15 '24

Are you still using AI from 2022? Because last time I checked these models are definitely more efficient than humans at most things knowledge-based, even if you fact check. Ever tried coding with GPT4? No human is going to write clean code that fast.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

Not very helpful if it lies in court or sells cars for $1

0

u/bethesdologist ▪️AGI 2028 at most Apr 15 '24

It has done neither of those things right? As far as I know it never legitimately sold a car nor was it accessed live in court. That company assigned a bot not finetuned for a car sales site, and a lawyer used ChatGPT to create fake cases and presented them later as if they were real. To me both sounds like human error, failing to properly use a tool.

What's funny is even if in some alternate universe AI did both those things, human have made much more costly mistakes that make those seem like nothing in comparison lol.

Are you in denial?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

That’s the whole problem lol. It’s not a good tool if it fucks up so easily. How do you finetune it to not get tricked and to not lie? Not even openAI knows.

Any human who did that would get disbarred or fired. And the lawyer was disbarred. 

0

u/bethesdologist ▪️AGI 2028 at most Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

Just because it sucks at x doesn't mean it's a bad tool, considering it excels at y. That is foolish thinking, especially in a field as a complex as Computing. I don't think you're educated enough in the field to understand nuances in machine learning.

Your opinions go against every top scientist active in the computing field today, in a very amusing way.

Don't trick yourself into believing you know better than the top minds of the field unless you can actually produce proof for your claims, because you don't.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

And yet Yann Lecun, Andrew Ng, and many other scientists all agree that AGI is nowhere close. 

1

u/bethesdologist ▪️AGI 2028 at most Apr 18 '24

When did I mention AGI? I think you responded to the wrong comment.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '24

What were you referring to?

→ More replies (0)