Is this true?
So many on HN make these absolute statements about how LLMs operate and what they can and can't do, that it seems like they fail harder at this test than any other.
It is just autocomplete.
They can't generalize.
They can't do anything not in their training set.
All of which are false.
This is the entirety of human history, humans create this data, we sink ourselves into it. It's wishful thinking that it would change.
> 2) the best model developers will continue to work hard to curate good data.
Im not sure that this matters much.
Leave these problems in place and you end up with an untrustworthy system, one where skill and diligence become differentiators... Step back from the hope of AI and you get amazing ML tooling that can 10x the most proficient operators.
> supervised tweaks (fine tuning, etc) are now major expenses for the best models. His prediction was that this expense will drive out the smaller players in the next few years.
This kills more refined AI. It is the same problem that killed "expert systems" where the cost of maintaining them and keeping them current was higher than the value they created.
This point seems under appreciated by the AGI proponents. If one of our models suddenly has a brainwave and becomes generally intelligent, it would realize that it is awash in a morass of contradictory facts. It would be more than the sum of its training data. The fact that all models at present credulously accept their training suggests to me that we aren’t even close to AGI.
In the short term I think two things will happen: 1) we will live with the reduced usefulness of models trained on data that has been poisoned, and 2) the best model developers will continue to work hard to curate good data. A colleague at Amazon recently told me that curation and post hoc supervised tweaks (fine tuning, etc) are now major expenses for the best models. His prediction was that this expense will drive out the smaller players in the next few years.