Oh nice, another Gary Marcus “AI hitting a wall post.”
Like his “Deep Learning Is Hitting a Wall” post on March 10th, 2022.
Indeed, not much has changed in the world of deep learning between spring 2022 and now.
No new model releases.
No leaps beyond what was expected.
\s
Gary Marcus is like a reverse Cassandra.
Consistently wrong, and yet regularly listened to, amplified, and believed.
There’s a lot of different possible ‘points.’
You haven’t used Cursor yet, have you?
That’s definitely one of the ways it’s going to be applied.
The bigger challenge is union negotiations around voice synthesis for those lines, but that will eventually get sorted out.
It won’t be dynamic, unless live service, but you’ll have significantly more fleshed out NPCs by the next generation of open world games (around 5-6 years from now).
Earlier than that will be somewhat enhanced, but not built from the ground up with it in mind the way the next generation will be.
Base model =/= Corpo fine tune
I’m a seasoned dev and I was at a launch event when an edge case failure reared its head.
In less than a half an hour after pulling out my laptop to fix it myself, I’d used Cursor + Claude 3.5 Sonnet to:
I never typed a single line of code and never left the chat box.
My job is increasingly becoming Henry Ford drawing the ‘X’ and not sitting on the assembly line, and I’m all for it.
And this would only have been possible in just the last few months.
We’re already well past the scaffolding stage. That’s old news.
Developing has never been easier or more plain old fun, and it’s getting better literally by the week.
Edit: I agree about junior devs not blindly trusting them though. They don’t yet know where to draw the X.
Actually, they are hiding the full CoT sequence outside of the demos.
What you are seeing there is a summary, but because the actual process is hidden it’s not possible to see what actually transpired.
People are very not happy about this aspect of the situation.
It also means that model context (which in research has been shown to be much more influential than previously thought) is now in part hidden with exclusive access and control by OAI.
There’s a lot of things to be focused on in that image, and “hur dur the stochastic model can’t count letters in this cherry picked example” is the least among them.
Yep:
https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/
First interactive section. Make sure to click “show chain of thought.”
The cipher one is particularly interesting, as it’s intentionally difficult for the model.
The tokenizer is famously bad at two letter counts, which is why previous models can’t count the number of rs in strawberry.
So the cipher depends on two letter pairs, and you can see how it screws up the tokenization around the xx at the end of the last word, and gradually corrects course.
Will help clarify how it’s going about solving something like the example I posted earlier behind the scenes.
You should really look at the full CoT traces on the demos.
I think you think you know more than you actually know.
I’d recommend everyone saying “it can’t understand anything and can’t think” to look at this example:
https://x.com/flowersslop/status/1834349905692824017
Try to solve it after seeing only the first image before you open the second and see o1’s response.
Let me know if you got it before seeing the actual answer.
They got off to a great start with the PS5, but as their lead grew over their only real direct competitor, they became a good example of the problems with monopolies all over again.
This is straight up back to PS3 launch all over again, as if they learned nothing.
Right on the tail end of a horribly mismanaged PSVR 2 launch.
We still barely have any current gen only games, and a $700 price point is insane for such a small library to actually make use of it.
Meanwhile, here’s an excerpt of a response from Claude Opus on me tasking it to evaluate intertextuality between the Gospel of Matthew and Thomas from the perspective of entropy reduction with redactional efforts due to human difficulty at randomness (this doesn’t exist in scholarship outside of a single Reddit comment I made years ago in /r/AcademicBiblical lacking specific details) on page 300 of a chat about completely different topics:
Yeah, sure, humans would be so much better at this level of analysis within around 30 seconds. (It’s also worth noting that Claude 3 Opus doesn’t have the full context of the Gospel of Thomas accessible to it, so it needs to try to reason through entropic differences primarily based on records relating to intertextual overlaps that have been widely discussed in consensus literature and are thus accessible).
This is pretty much every study right now as things accelerate. Even just six months can be a dramatic difference in capabilities.
For example, Meta’s 3-405B has one of the leading situational awarenesses of current models, but isn’t present at all to the same degree in 2-70B or even 3-70B.
Self destructive addiction even happens to corporations.
The DLC is really the right balance for FromSoft.
The zones in the base game are slightly too big.
In the DLC, it’s still open world and extremely flexible in how you explore it, but there’s less wasted space.
It’s very tightly knit and the pacing is better as a result.
It’s like Elden Ring was watching masters of their craft cut their teeth on something new, and then the DLC was them applying everything they learned in that process.
Can’t wait for their next game in that same vein (especially not held back by last gen consoles).
Your interpretation of copyright law would be helped by reading this piece from an EFF lawyer who has actually litigated copyright cases in the past:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0
I hate that the Smithscript weapons can’t be buffed.
Especially for the daggers.
Wanted to pew pew little bolts of lightning buffed daggers doing an additional 200+ damage per hit. 😢
“If you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.”
I’d be very wary of extrapolating too much from this paper.
The past research along these lines found that a mix of synthetic and organic data was better than organic alone, and a caveat for all the research to date is that they are using shitty cheap models where there’s a significant performance degrading in the synthetic data as compared to SotA models, where other research has found notable improvements to smaller models from synthetic data from the SotA.
Basically this is only really saying that AI models across multiple types from a year or two ago in capabilities recursively trained with no additional organic data will collapse.
It’s not representative of real world or emerging conditions.
Let there be this kind of light in these dark times.