Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Emory_C t1_j5s5tym wrote

Reply to comment by Cult_of_Chad in Anyone else kinda tired of the way some are downplaying the capabilities of language models? by deadlyklobber

>What we have right now is already enough to completely change humanity.

That's ludicrous. Completely change humanity.

How?

1

Talkat t1_j5t1iaf wrote

Alright I'll give it a shot.

A majority of Labor pre industrial revolution was human powered. Therefore everything took a lot of time and energy and 95÷+ of humans was in farming.

The industrial revolution allowed us to replace human muscles with mechanical. That resulted in <5÷ in farming.

The AI revolution will change human powered thinking to mechanical, but of course just like a motor is stronger than a human, can run 24/7, can be made bigger, etc, the same is true for AI

So expect 95÷+ change in how people live their lives. How? Who knows. But the change is monumental and will be a far faster transition than the industrial revolution

3

KSRandom195 t1_j5t8ckm wrote

This is why I get frustrated with claims that LLMs are “it.” LLMs don’t think, so they can’t do this step function you’re talking about. You can’t run an LLM 24/7 and spit out new ideas, because LLMs aren’t actually thinking.

You can pair an LLM with a human and make that human more efficient. But without the human the original thought bit is missing. This is why people are saying that prompt writers are going to be valuable, because some jobs will be replaced with prompt writers.

When you have to add the human back to the mix a lot of the benefit you’re talking about goes away.

8

Talkat t1_j5tbvcl wrote

I'm not making any claims about LLM's.

The first motors were woefully inefficient and were just used to move water.

If someone said that will change humanity, you would laugh and say, what, this shitty pump?

But the motor evolved and performance increased and it started at more applications than just pumping water.

We are at the dawn of an AI revolution. This is the first iteration of a shitty water pump.

Prompt writers aren't going to be a job. This will be a very brief period of time where you have to spend time to engineer a prompt to get what you want.

2

KSRandom195 t1_j5tcsn6 wrote

The context you’re discussing this in is within a post about being frustrated with people saying LLMs aren’t going to revolutionize the universe.

That your referring to LLMs is implied by the context of the post. The whole argument being made is that people like me are wrong because we are “downplaying” the capabilities of LLMs.

In that context you are implying that LLMs will be like the Industrial Revolution and replace our need to think.

I’m saying that claims like yours are where I find fault with that argument. LLMs may be a step on that journey, they may not, but they are definitely not going to cause the AI Revolution on their own

3

RabidHexley t1_j5u29qf wrote

>In that context you are implying that LLMs will be like the Industrial Revolution and replace our need to think.

To play devil's advocate, there are a lot of applications specifically for LLMs (and other AI applications) that could easily end up replacing a lot of "thinking human"-type jobs or tasks. Typing up reports, contract evaluation, code translation, etc. There are plenty of jobs that today require human thought and intuition that are the mental equivalent of manual labor. The kind of tasks that would previously go to "junior" positions in a lot of fields.

There would obviously still be people involved, but the AI in question is replacing a lot of the (thinking) manpower that previously would have been required. Same way a few farm workers can till 100s of acres of fields with the assistance of industrial machinery.

Or the way computers replaced the rooms filled with dozens upon dozens of women running manual calculations for accounting firms.

Even if we never moved beyond the current types AI tech we're seeing today, and only continued making it better and more efficient (without any kind of "AGI revolution"). The implications as far as force-multiplication do seem fairly similar to many previous revolutionary technologies.

GPT-3 has been around for a couple years, but it's also only been a couple years, long in tech, but not long at all for human-scale development of brand-new stuff. It's also an early version of tech that's only in recent years becoming sophisticated enough to actually be useful (that the public knows about).

Most importantly. It's also not a complete product, but the backbone for a potential product (ChatGPT being an early alpha for something like an actual product). Even if GPT-3 itself was ready for prime time (which I don't think it is), it would still take years before products were developed on it that began to actually change the game.

The iPhone was conceptualized many years before actually reaching it's final design and being released. It was also built on mobile technology that existed before it and on the backs of many previous mobile touchscreen devices. And even at that point only became widely recognized as the truly revolutionary product it was (as opposed to just a really cool phone) once the smartphone revolution actually kicked off a few years later.

This applies to AI's working in other verticals as well. Making what was previously only possible (or not possible) with a ton of people or computational power, possible with far far less. We don't have the insight to understand the full scope of implications yet.

2

fjaoaoaoao t1_j5tzsks wrote

Then per the point of the thread, I think that’s a matter of definition. One could say the AI revolution started in the 60s with the internet or in 30s with first digital computer. Maybe those were the shitty water pumps.

3

KidKilobyte t1_j5tc6mc wrote

Not if one human is producing as much as 10 or 100 humans without the LLM. Add to this LLMs will only get better and closer to AGI. The fact that LLMs get better makes it easier and faster to get to better LLMs in the future. At some point you won't need a human in the loop.

0

KSRandom195 t1_j5td2s9 wrote

LLMs aren’t capable of thought. So they can not get to AGI on their own, something else has to be done. They may help us get there, they may be a component of the final AGI, but we still need something else.

3

Emory_C t1_j5uc8s5 wrote

>The AI revolution will change human powered thinking to mechanical, but of course just like a motor is stronger than a human, can run 24/7, can be made bigger, etc, the same is true for AI

I agree with this, but the person I responded to said "right now."

It's the right now part that I'm taking issue with.

2

AvgAIbot t1_j5s7mmp wrote

Here ya go chump:

AlphaFold has the potential to significantly advance the field of structural biology, which is the study of the three-dimensional structures of biological macromolecules such as proteins. By accurately predicting the 3D structure of a protein from its amino acid sequence, AlphaFold can help researchers better understand how proteins function, and aid in the discovery of new drugs and therapies.

Protein structure prediction is a long-standing challenge in computational biology, and many researchers have been working on the problem for decades. AlphaFold's ability to achieve near-experimental accuracy in many cases is a major breakthrough in this field, and has the potential to accelerate the pace of research in structural biology and related areas.

It could also have an impact in the industry. For example, in the field of drug discovery, a better understanding of protein structure can help identify new targets for drug development and design more effective drugs. In addition, AlphaFold's ability to predict the structures of previously uncharacterized proteins could help identify new enzymes for industrial biotechnology and new proteins for use in biomanufacturing.

Overall, AlphaFold's ability to accurately predict protein structures could have a major impact in various areas of biology and medicine, and could lead to new breakthroughs in the fight against diseases and the development of new technologies.

0

Emory_C t1_j5s7ti4 wrote

Yes. That's a major achievement in medicine.

That does not in any way, shape, or form "completely change humanity."

Chump.

−3