He doesn’t. He says he cares more about generating growth (and thus presumably revenue) than about AGI.
Also, this thing is from February.
Social media sucks. Reporting on reporting sucks. News aggregators suck.
AI may suck, but it’s definitely not alone in being shitty. We’re all clearly very good at tool-less, artisanal misinformation.
Sure, but… then it’s not a meme, right? The point of memes is that spark of recognition. You know what the template means, or at least you can figure it out, you get the joke, then you… well, you meme.
But if you make a meme and every time you post it the chat is about “hey what’s that show?” then it’s not a meme, it’s you recommending some show.
It’s fine, it’s not the end of the world, and memes can work even if you don’t understand where they come from if the image doesn’t depend on its original context to work (see for instance: blinking guy meme not needing to know who Drew Scanlon is), but it’s a weird reminder that we no longer have a shared cultural repository in the algorithm age.
Yes. It’s a response to a post asking what the meme image is from, which I also didn’t recognize. And then you took it upon yourself to ask about it and now the entire thread below the meme is dominated by two idiots arguing about whether memes can be made from newer media.
Which is why every meme has to be from the 80s because nobody is ever going to watch the same thing enough to recognize loose frames ever again.
I’m confused by the confusion. I’m saying media is getting atomized and decentralized so there are no media touchstones other than the algorithm anymore.
So memes are harder to make from newer media because there’s no watercooler thing everybody is watching at the same time anymore so there’s less cultural overlap that everybody will recognize at a glance forever.
You made me say it all boring now.
Every meme has to be from the 80s because nobody is ever going to watch the same thing enough to recognize loose frames ever again.
This is a fair point. Although it’d be fun in the absolutely extreme scenario people are presenting here where all the coders would lose their coding job but get coding jobs generating random AI training data instead.
Some of the ways both critics and shills present the future of this technology are kinda nuts.
But that point is not the same as LLMs degrading when trained on its own data.
Again, it may be the same as the problem of “how do you separate AI generated data from human generated data”, so a filtering issue.
But it’s not the same as the problem of degradation due to self-training. Which I’m fairly sure you’re also misrepresenting, but I REALLY don’t want to get into that.
But hey, if you don’t want to keep talking about this that’s your prerogative. I just want to make it very clear that the reasons why that’s… just not a thing have nothing to do with training on AI-generated data. Your depiction is a wild extrapolation even if you were right about how poisonous AI-generated data is.
Hm. That’s rolling the argument back a few steps there. None of the stuff we’ve talked about in the past few posts has anything to do with the impact of AI-on-AI training.
I mean, you could stretch the idea and argue that there is a filtering problem to be solved or whatever, but that aside everything I’m saying would still be true if AI training exploded any time it’s accidentally given a “Hello world” written by a machine.
I appreciate that you didn’t mean to say what you said, but words mean things. I can only respond to what you say, not what you meant.
Especially here, where the difference entirely changes whether you’re right or not.
Because no, “less human code” doesn’t mean “less AI training”. It could mean a slowdown in how fast you can expand the training dataset, but again, old code doesn’t disappear just because you used it for training before. You don’t need a novel training dataset to train. The same data we have plus a little bit of new data is MORE training data, not less.
And less human code is absolutely not the same thing as “new human code will stop being created”. That’s not even a slip of the tongue, those are entirely different concepts.
There is a big difference between arguing that the pace of improvement will slow down (which is probably true even without any data scarcity) and saying that a lack of new human created code will bring AI training to a halt. That is flat out not a thing.
That this leads to “less developments and advancements in programming in general” is also a wild claim. How many brilliant programmers need to get replaced by AI before that’s true? Which fields are generating “developments and advancements in programming”? Are those fields being targeted by AI replacements? More or less than other fields? Does that come from academia or the private sector? Is the pace of development slowing down specifially in that area? Is AI generating “developments and advancements” of its own? Is it doing so faster or slower than human coders? Not at all?
People say a lot of stuff here. Again, on both sides of the aisle. If you know the answers to any of those questions you shouldn’t be arguing on the Internet, you should be investing in tech stock. Try to do something positive with the money after, too.
I’d say it’s more likely you’re just wildly extrapolating from relatively high level observations, though.
You are saying a lot of things that sound good to you without much grounding. You claiming this is a “widespread and significant issue” is going to need some backing up, because I may be cautious about not claiming more knowledge than I have, but I know enough to tell you it’s not particularly well understood, nobody is in a position to predict the workarounds and it’s by no means the only major issue. The social media answer would be to go look it up, but it’s the weekend and I refuse to let you give me homework. I have better things to do today.
That’s the problem with being cautious about things. Not everybody has to. Not everybody knows they should or when. I don’t know if you’re dunning kruger incarnate or an expert talking down to me (pretty sure it’s not the second, though).
And I’m pretty sure of that because yeah, it is an infinite doomsday slippery slope scenario. That I happen to know well enough to not have to be cautious about not having done all the reading.
I mean, your original scenario is that. You’re sort of walking it back here where it’s just some effect, not the endgame. And because now you’re not saying “if AI actually replaces programmers wholesale” anymore the entire calculation is different. It goes back to my original point: What data will AI use to train? The same data they have now. Because it will NOT in fact replace programmers wholesale and the data is not fungible, so there still will be human-generated code to train on (and whatever the equivalent high enough quality hybrid or machine-generated code is that clears the bar).
AI has a problem with running out of (good) data to train on, but that only tells you there is a hard limit to the current processes, which we already knew. Whether current AI is as good as it’s going to get or there is a new major breaktrough in training or model design left to be discovered is anybody’s guess.
If there is one, then the counter gets reset and we will see how far that can take the technology, I suppose. If there is not, then we know how far we’ve taken it and we can see how far it’s growing and how quickly it’s plateauing. There is no reason to believe it will get worse, though.
Will companies leap into it too quickly? They already have. We’re talking about a thing that’s in the past. But the current iteration of the tech is incapable of removing programmers from the equation. At most it’s a more practical reference tool and a way to blast past trivial tasks. There is no doomsday loop to be had unless the landscape shifts signfiicantly, despite what AI shills have been trying to sell people. This is what pisses me off the most about this conversation, the critics are buying into the narrative of the shills aggressively in ways that don’t really hold up to scrutiny for either camp.
deleted by creator
My “credibility on this topic” is of zero interest to me. I am not here to appeal to authority. I know you didn’t mean it like that, but man, it’s such a social media argument point to make it jumped right at me. For the record, it’s not that I haven’t heard about problems with training on AI-generated content (and on filtering out that content). It’s that I don’t need to flaunt my e-dick and will openly admit when I haven’t gone deep into an issue. I have not read the papers I’ve heard of and I have not specifically searched for more of them, so I’ll get back to you on that one if and when I do.
Anyway, that aside, you are presenting a bizarre scenario. You’re arguing that corporations will be demonstrably worse off by moving all coding to be machine-generated but they will do it anyway. Ad infinitum. Until there are no human coders left. At which point they will somehow keep doing it despite the fact that AI training would have entirely unraveled as a process by then.
Think you may have extrapolated a bit too far on that one? I think you may have extrapolated a bit too far on that one. Corpos can do a lot of dumb shit, but they tend to be very sensitive about stuff that costs them money. And even if that wasn’t the case, the insane volume of cheap skilled labor that would generate pretty much guarantees some competing upstart would replace them with the, in your sci-fi scenario, massively superior alternative.
FWIW, no, that’s not the same as outsourcing. Outsourcing hasn’t “often been a bad idea”. Having been on both sides of that conversation, it’s “a bad idea” when you have a home base with no incentive to help their outsourced peers and a superiority complex. There’s nothing inherently worse about an outsourced worker/developer. The thing that closes the gap on outsourcing cost/performance is, if anything, that over time outsourced workers get good and expect to get paid to match. I am pretty much okay with every part of that loop. Different pet peeve, though, we may want to avoid that rabbit hole.
Bit of a tautology, that. Presumably for AI to “replace programmers wholesale” it would need to produce human-quality code. Presumably human-quality code would not degrade anything because it’d be… you know, human-quality.
From what I can tell the degradation you’re talking about relates to natural language data. Stuff like physics simulations seems to be working fine to train models for other tasks, and presumably functional code is functional code. I don’t know if there is any specific analysis about code, though, I’ve only seen a couple of studies and then only as amplified by press.
I haven’t looked into it specifically because it really seems like a bit of a pointless hypothetical. Either AI can get better from the training data available or it can’t and then it is as good as it’s going to get unless the training methods themselves improve. At the moment it sure seems that there is a ton of research claiming both paths for growth and growth stalling that are both getting disproven by implementation almost faster than the analysis can be produced.
This argument mostly matters to investors itching to get ahead of a trend where they can fully automate a bunch of jobs and services and I’m more than happy to see them miss that mark and learn what the tech can do the hard way.
To be absolutely clear, AI is not “going to put everything else out of business”. Certainly LLMs won’t. Not even in programming.
It’s bad enough when people spend longer berating the OP for their question-asking etiquette than it would take to answer the question.
However it’s nothing compared to the absolute deviants who do provide an answer but do so in a deliberately oblique fashion that requires much more research to understand than the original problem.
It’s volunteer tech support, not testing that I’m pure of heart so I can access a mystic sword, you can just say the thing.
I mean… the same data they use now? And presumably other LLM output based on that, which is something that may or may not affect things a lot, nobody really knows.
Even if AIs consumed data when they trained on it so it couldn’t be used for training again, which they do not, it’s not like code stops being created, stored and datamined by the people who own the creation and storage.
See also “the Linux community”.
ducks for cover
Oh, yeah, that’s a branch of this argument I had almost forgotten. Such violent swings in the stylization wars.
I think these days it’s less aesthetics/graphics and it’s more photorealistic graphics/minimalist graphics, except minimalist graphics don’t register as graphics at all in some cases.
In the middle there we also have the “graphics haven’t improved since the Xbox 360” crowd. I think remembering that we spent like a decade playing games in black and white will become the new “PSOne games looked terrible and we didn’t realize” in a minute. It’s due, because now we’re in the wave of “PSOne games looked awesome, here’s a lo-fi stylized game people think took no effort to make for some reason” after people stopped referring to pixel art as “retro”.
I have to say I wasn’t ready for how much getting old makes these nerdy arguments start to pile up in sediment layers. It’s been a long trip.
No, there are definitely tradeoffs with TAA. Just… not extreme ghosting trails like the stuff you posted unless something is kinda glitchy. Which is where the weird layers of misinformation seem to be creeping out. You have a layer of people talking about how they find soft looking TAA images annoying and what seems to be an expanding blob of people attributing a whole bunch of other stuff to the thing as if it was the standard, which it absolutely isn’t.
FWIW, I took a peek at that subreddit and it’s mostly relatively informed nerds obsessing over maxing out for a specific thing (edge sharpness, presumably) over anything else. I was pleasantly surprised to see they’re not as much of a cultish thing where soft edges or upscaling are anathema and instead they mostly seem interested in sharing examples of places where temporal upscaling works better/worse than TAA.
Most of them are doing so in video so compressed it’s impossible to tell what looks better or worse at all, but hey, it’s at least not entirely delusional.
I guess it depends on how much you do your homework. I just spent a while listening to Satya Nadella regurgitate self-congratulatory CEO-speak just to verify that yes, indeed, this link is gargbage. I feel entitled to at least a bit of resentment for that.
Ironically, the time I spent doing this was much shorter because the podcast that originates the blatant misquote has an AI-generated searchable transcript.