this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
143 points (86.3% liked)

Technology

58131 readers
4901 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Bill Gates feels Generative AI has plateaued, says GPT-5 will not be any better::The billionaire philanthropist in an interview with German newspaper Handelsblatt, shared his thoughts on Artificial general intelligence, climate change, and the scope of AI in the future.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I’m not sure I’d say it’s plateaued today but I definitely think machine learning is going to hit a wall soon. Some tech keeps improving until physical limits stop progress but I see generative AI as being more like self-driving cars where the “easy” parts end up solved but the last 10% is insanely hard.

There’s also the economic reality of scaling. Maybe the “hard” problems could, in theory, be easily solved with enough compute power. We’ll eventually solve those problems but it’s going to be on Nvidia’s timeline, not OpenAI’s.

[–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Generative ai is a bit different from self driving cars in the sense that they're tolerant to failures. This may give more room for improvements when compared to other applications.

[–] erwan@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Yes, especially when you consider that the human brain runs on 15W of power!

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago

Let me save you a click: he doesn’t say anything interesting about why he thinks this.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 25 points 9 months ago

What does Bill Gates know about GenAI? Is he an expert on the subject?

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 22 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Cool, Bill Gates has opinions. I think he's being hasty and speaking out of turn and only partially correct. From my understanding, the "big innovation" of GPT-4 was adding more parameters and scaling up compute. The core algorithms are generally agreed to be mostly the same from earlier versions (not that we know for sure since OpenAI has only released a technical report). Based on that, the real limit on this technology is compute and number of parameters (as boring as that is), and so he's right that the algorithm design may have plateaued. However, we really don't know what will happen if truly monster rigs with tens-of-trillions of parameters are used when trained on the entirety of human written knowledge (morality of that notwithstanding), and that's where he's wrong.

[–] Vlyn@lemmy.zip 67 points 9 months ago (14 children)

You got it the wrong way around. We already have a ton of compute and what this kind of AI can do is pretty cool.

But adding more compute power and parameters won't solve the inherent problems.

No matter what you do, it's still just a text generator guessing the next best word. It doesn't do real math or logic, it gets basic things wrong and hallucinates new fake facts.

Sure, it will get slightly better still, but not much. You can throw a million times the power at it and it will still fuck up in just the same ways.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

it's still just a text generator guessing the next best word. It doesn't do real math or logic, it gets basic things wrong and hallucinates new fake facts.

If humans are any kind of yardstick here, I’d say all this is true of us too on many levels. The brain is a shortcut engine, not a brute force computer. It’s not solving equations to help you predict where that tennis ball will bounce next. It’s making guesses based on its corpus of past experience. Good enough guesses are frankly our brains’ bread and butter and most of us get through most days on little more than this.

It’s true that we can do more. Some of us, anyway. How many people actually exercise math and logic though? Sometimes it seems like… not a lot. And how many people hallucinate fake facts? A lot.

It’s much like evaluating self-driving cars. We may be tempted to say they’re just bloody awful, but so are human drivers.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah and I think he may be scaling to like true AGI. Very possible LLMs just don't become AGI, you need some extra juice we haven't come up with yet, in addition to computational power no one can afford yet.

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Except that scaling alone won't lead to AGI. It may generate better, more convincing text, but the core algorithm is the same. That "special juice" is almost certainly going to come from algorithmic development rather than just throwing more compute at the problem.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

See my reply to the person you replied to. I think you're right that there will need to be more algorithmic development (like some awareness of its own confidence so that the network can say IDK instead of hallucinating its best guess). Fundamentally though, llm's don't have the same dimensions of awareness that a person does, and I think that that's the main bottleneck of human-like understanding.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

My hypothesis is that that "extra juice" is going to be some kind of body. More senses than text-input, and more ways to manipulate itself and the environment than text-output. Basically, right now llm's can kind of understand things in terms of text descriptions, but will never be able to understand it the way a human can until it has all of the senses (and arguably physical capabilities) that a human does. Thought experiment: Presumably you "understand" your dog - can you describe your dog without sensory details, directly or indirectly? Behavior had to be observed somehow. Time is a sense too. EDIT: before someone says it, as for feelings I'm not really sure, I'm not a biology guy. But my guess is we sense our own hormones as well

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lorkano@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

The problem is that between gpt 3 and 4 there is massive increase in number of parameters, but not massive increase in its abilities

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I’ll listen to his opinions more than some, but unfortunately this article doesn’t say anything interesting about why he has this opinion. I guess the author supposes we will simply regard him as an oracle on name recognition alone.

[–] yournamehere@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

bill is a wanker. dont be like bill.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Now now. He only hired assholes and monsters to execute immoral MS mob style tactics, while he played the great innocent altruist.

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago

I hope so. Theyve already got scary implications for creative parts of the economy.

That said, we're in the Cambrian explosion of the tech. As it plateaus, the next step will be enhanced tooling and convenience around it. Better inputs than just text, better, more applications in new spaces, etc.

[–] SociallyAwkwardLinux@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

"GPT-4 should be enough for anyone." -Bill Gates

[–] Mio@feddit.nu 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But we have more areas to apply this to. I still can't ask my PC to do some work, like Unistall OneDrive or change a setting in the OS. Send a message on Teams. Where is Jarvis?

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Having Generative AI make API calls on your behalf is a work in progress across pretty much every industry. It'll make complex tasks across multiple services a lot easier but it's definitely going to cause weird unpredictable behavior too.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] oldfart@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Not a single comment yet stating how Gates is a great human being because of his foundation, and how all you haters should fuck the fuck off? sigh, let me the first one.

[–] oldfart@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

Just to make things extremely clear, the above comment has been sarcastic. He's an awful person.

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

They're upset he insulted their AI girlfriends.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 4 points 9 months ago

On the one hand, I don't really know enough about AI to comment. What I do remember is that, Bill Gates said the Internet was just a fad in the 90s. This comment caused myself and others problems promoting the Internet in workplaces because those in charge for some reason put some weight to his words. :p

[–] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I've been saying this for years!

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Bill Gates views on AI are about as insightful as Gordon Ramsey’s on orbital mechanics.

[–] trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think he could be right about generative AI, but that's not a serious problem given we're moving beyond generative AI and into virtual intelligence territory.

Generative ai right now requires someone (or something) to initiate it with a prompt, but according to some of the latest research papers in OpenAI as well as the drama that happened recently surrounding the leadership, it appears that we're moving beyond the 'generative' phase into the 'virtual intelligence' phase.

It's not going to be 'smart' it will be knowledgeable (and accurate, hopefully). That is to say VI's will be useful as data retrieval or organization but not necessarily data creation (although IIRC the way to get around this would be to develop a VI that specifically only works on creating ideas but we'd be moving into AGI territory and I don't expect we'll have serious contenders for AGI for another decade at least).

The rumours abound surrounding the OpenAI drama, the key one being the potential for accidentally developing AGI internally (I doubt this heavily). The more likely reason is that the board of directors had a financial stake in Nvidia and when they found out altman was working on chips specifically for AI that were faster, lower cost, and lower power consumption than current nvidia trash (by literally tens of thousands of dollars), they fired him to try and force the company onto their preferred track (and profit in the process, which IMO, kind of ironic that a non-profit board of directors has so many 'closed door' discussions with nvidia staff...)

This is just the thoughts of a comp-sci student with a focus on artificial intelligence systems.

If interested in further reading:

https://www.ibm.com/blog/understanding-the-different-types-of-artificial-intelligence/

https://digitalreality.ieee.org/publications/virtual-intelligence-vs-artificial-intelligence

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-we-really-want-in-a-leader/202204/why-you-need-to-focus-on-virtual-intelligence

Keep in mind that because it's still early days in this field that a lot of terms haven't reached an established consensus across academia yet, so you'll notice variations in how each organization explains what "x" type of intelligence is.

[–] menemen@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Maybe, but I am sure the tools the AIs can use will improve making the AIs jobs easier and thus the AI more efficient. I hope he is right tbh.

Eww, as a long time Linux user I need to take a shower now. I feel dirty.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›