32
submitted 20 hours ago by kinther@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] palordrolap@fedia.io 8 points 14 hours ago

Dead end, local maximum, tomayto, tomahto.

[-] hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl 23 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

The right tool for the right job. It's not intelligent, it is just trained. It all boils down to stochastic.

And then there is the ecological aspect...
Or sometimes the moral aspect, if it is used to manage someone's "fate" in application processing. And it might be trained to be racist or misogynist if you use the wrong training data.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

The moral aspect is resolved if you approach building human systems correctly too.

There is a person or an organization making a decision. They may use an "AI", they may use Tarot cards, they may use the applicant's f*ckability from photos. But they are somehow responsible for that decision and it is judged by some technical, non-subjective criteria afterwards.

That's how these things are done properly. If a human system is not designed correctly, then it really doesn't matter which particular technology or social situation will expose that.

But I might have too high expectations of humanity.

[-] sighofannoyance@lemmy.world -3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

It’s not intelligent, it is just trained.

The same could be said about every human being....

[-] hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl 7 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

An LLM cannot think like you and I. it's not able to solve entirely new problems. And it doesn't have a concept of the world - it paints hands without knowing what a hand does.

It is a system which learns the rules of something by means of reinforcement learning to tune the coefficients of its heap of linear equations. It is better than a human in its area. I guess it can be good for tedious, repetitive tasks. Nevertheless it is just a huge coefficient matrix.

But it can only reproduce what is in the training data - you need lots of already solved examples in the training data. It doesn't work for entirely new problems.

(that's also the reason, why LLMs don't give good answers to questions about specialized niche topics. When there are just one or two studies, there just isn't enough training data for the LLM.)

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 10 hours ago
[-] hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 37 minutes ago)

They replaced the training data with an evaluator. (which rates the LLMs output for training?) Interesting, thanks.

Edit: this reminds me of the self evolving (virtual) robot problem, a robot which is rated by an external moderator and improves over time. I.e.: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231221003982

[-] superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 13 hours ago

Right? I see comments all the time about it just being glorified pattern recognition. Well...thats what humans do as well. We recognize patterns and then predict the most likely outcome.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 hours ago

That is one part of many that a human brain does. This is like trying to say the color red is a rainbow, because the rainbow has red in it.

[-] Schorsch@feddit.org 8 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Betteridge's law of headlines

And after all, current "AI" models are just one step on a longer way, which is what I read as the conclusion of the article.

[-] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

But if you read the article, then you saw that the author specifically concludes that the answer to the question in the headline is "yes."

This is a dead end and the only way forward is to abandon the current track.

[-] db2@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago
[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 19 hours ago

Judging just by the headline, the answer should be "No", though, according to Betteridge's law of headlines.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 7 points 15 hours ago

But we don't like AI, therefore anything negative said about it is more plausible than anything positive said about it. You see the dilemma here.

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Hmmh, I usually get upvoted for citing Betteridge's law... But not today within this context. Yeah, I'm aware of Lemmy's mentality. I still think what I said holds up 😉

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 15 hours ago

I've found the Fediverse to be a lot "bubblier" than Reddit, I suspect because the communities are smaller. Makes it easier for groupthink to become established. One element of the @technology bubble is a strong anti-AI sentiment, I've kind of given up on getting any useful information on that subject here. Quite unfortunate given how widespread it's getting.

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I'm subscribed to: !auai@programming.dev , !fosai@lemmy.world , !localllama@sh.itjust.works , !kintelligenz@feddit.org (German)

I think we could co-exist peacefully, if we put in some effort. But that's not how Lemmy works. We use the "All"-Feed instead of subscriptions and then complain we don't want posts about all the topics... Most posts are made to AskLemmy, NoStupidQuestions or Technology, disregarding if any dedicated communities exist... It's a bit of a mess. And yeah, the mob mentality is strong. It helps if you go with the flow. Just don't mention nuanced and complicated details. Simple truths always win. Especially if people like to believe something were true.

I really don't care any more. I mean I agree with most of this problem. Some days half the posts on technology (or more) are about AI. And a lot of that isn't even newsworthy stuff or something with substance. If I were in charge, I'd delete that, tell people to discuss the minute details in some dedicated community and have some more balance. Because there are a lot of other very interesting tech-related topics that could be discussed instead.

And simultaneously, I'd love to see some more activity and engagement in the AI communities.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago

Yes. That's why everyone is scrambling to create new interoperable model languages and frameworks that work on more efficient hardware.

Almost everything that is productized right now stems from work in the Python world from years ago. It got a swift uptake with Nvidia making it easier to use their hardware on compiled models, but now everyone wants more efficient options.

FPGA presents a huge upside to not being locked into a specific vendor, so some people are going that route. Others are just making their frameworks more modular to support the numerous TPU/NPU processors that everyone and their brother needlessly keeps building into things.

Something will come out of all of this, but right now the community shift is to do things without needing so much goddamn power draw. More efficient modeling will come as well, but that's less important since everything is compiled down to something that is supported by the devices themselves. At the end of the day, this is all compilation and logic, and we just need to do it MUCH leaner and faster than the current ecosystem is creeping towards. It's not only detrimental to the environment, it's also not as profitable. Hopefully the latter makes OpenAI and Microsoft get their shit together instead of building more power plants.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 7 points 16 hours ago

I don't really see how FPGA has a role to play here. What circuit are you going to put on it. If it's tensor multipliers, even at low precision, a GPU will be an order of magnitude faster just on clock speed, and another in terms of density.

What we've got right now has almost nothing to do with python, and everything to do with the compute density of GPUs crossing a threshold. FPGAs are lower density and slower.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world -3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

If you're unfamiliar with FPGA, you may want to read up a bit, but essentially, a generic platform that is reprogrammed between iterations of doing something more efficiently than a generic instruction set. You tell it what to do, and it does it.

This is more efficient than x86, ARM, or RISC because you're setting the boundaries and capabilities, not the other way around.

Your understanding of GPUs is wrong though. What people run now is BECAUSE of GPUs being available and able to run those workloads. Not even well, just quickly. Having an FPGA set for YOUR specific work is drastically more efficient, and potentially faster depending on what you're doing. Obviously for certain things, it's a circle peg in a square hole, but you have to develop for what is going to work for your own specific use-case.

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 hours ago

yes, but what you need to be doing is tons of multiply-accumulate, using a fuckton of memory bandwidth.. Which a gpu is designed for. You won't design anything much better with an fpga.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 6 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

I know exactly what they are. I design CPUs for a living, use FPGAs to emulate them, and have worked on GPUs and many other ASICs in the past.

FPGAs can accelerate certain functions, yes, but neural net evaluation is basically massive matrix multiplies. That's something that GPUs are already highly optimised for. Hence, why I asked what circuit you'd put on the FPGA. Unless you can accelerate the algorithmic evaluation by several orders of magnitude the inefficiency of FPGAs Vs ASICs will cripple you.

this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
32 points (83.3% liked)

Technology

60123 readers
3067 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS