• jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Ok, but by that same perspective, you could say convolutional neural networks have been around since the 80s. It wasn’t until Geoffrey Hinton put them back on the map in 2012ish that anyone cared. GPT2 is when I started paying attention to LLMs, and that’s 5 years old or so.

    Even a decade is new in the sense of Laplace’s law of succession alone indicating there’s still a 10% chance we’ll solve the problem in the next year.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Laplace’s law of succession only applies if we know an experiment can result in either success or failure. We don’t know that. That’s just adding new assumptions for your religion. For all we know, this can never result in success and it’s a dead end.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I have to hard disagree here. Laplace’s law of succession does not require that assumption. It’s easy to see why intuitively: if it turns out the probability is 0 (or 1) then the predicted probability from Laplace’s law of succession limits to 0 (or 1) as more results come in.

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            It may help to distinguish between the “true” probability of an event and the observer’s internal probability for that event. If the observer’s probability is 0 or 1 then you’re right, it can never change. This is why your prior should never be 0 or 1 for anything.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              This is why your prior should never be 0 or 1 for anything.

              For anything? Are you sure about that?

              Because I say there’s 0 probability that six sided dice will ever produce a 7.

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                A better example of this is “how sure are you that 2+2=4 ?” It makes sense to assign a prior probability of 1 to such mathematical certainties, because they don’t depend on our uncertain world. On the other hand, how sure are you that 8858289582116283904726618947467287383847 isn’t prime?

                For a die in a thought experiment – sure, it can’t be 7. But in a physical universe, a die could indeed surprise you with a 7.

                More to the point, why do you believe the probability that hallucinations as a problem will be solved (at least to the point that they are rare and mild enough not to matter) is literally 0? Do you think that the existence of fanatical AI zealots makes it less likely?

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Okay, so by your logic the probability of literally everything is 1. That’s absurd and that’s not how Laplace’s law of succession is supposed to be applied. The point I’m trying to make is that some things are literally impossible, you can’t just hand-wave that!

                  And I’m not saying that solving hallucinations is impossible! What I’m saying that it could be impossible and am criticizing your blind faith in progress because you just believe the probability is literally 1. I can’t say, for sure, that it’s impossible. At the same time you can’t say, for sure, that it is possible. You can’t just assume the problem will inevitably be fixed, otherwise you’ve talked yourself into a cult.

                  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    I’m not saying the probability of literally everything is 1. I am saying nonzero. 0.00003 is not 1 nor 0.

                    I am not assuming the problem will inevitably be fixed. I think 0.5 is a reasonable p for most.