I’m usually the one saying “AI is already as good as it’s gonna get, for a long while.”

This article, in contrast, is quotes from folks making the next AI generation - saying the same.

  • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    17 hours ago

    OpenAI, Google, Anthropic admit they can’t scale up their chatbots any further

    Lol, no they didn’t. The quotes this articles are using are talking about LLMs not chatbots. This is yet another stupid article from someone who doesn’t understand the technology. There is a lot of legitimate criticism for the way this technology is being implemented but FFS get the basics right at least.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Claiming that David Gerrard an Amy Castor “don’t understand the technology” is uh… Hoo boy… Well it sure is a take.

    • MajorHavoc@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Are you asserting that chatbots are so fundamentally different from LLMs that “oh shit we can’t just throw more CPU and data at this anymore” doesn’t apply to roughly the same degree?

      • makyo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I feel like people are using those terms pretty well interchangeably lately anyway

      • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Yes of course I’m asserting that. While the performance of LLMs may be plateauing, the cost, context window, and efficiency is still getting much better. When you chat with a modern chat bot it’s not just sending your input to an LLM like the first public version of ChatGPT. Nowadays a single chat bot response may require many LLM requests along with other techniques to mitigate the deficiencies of LLMs. Just ask the free version of ChatGPT a question that requires some calculation and you’ll have a better understanding of what’s going on and the direction of the industry.

        • MajorHavoc@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I think you’re agreeing, just in a rude and condescending way.

          There’s a lot of ways left to improve, but they’re not as simple as just throwing more data and CPU at the problem, anymore.

          • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            I’m sorry if I’m coming across as condescending, that’s not my intent. It’s never been “as simple as just throwing more data and CPU at the problem”. There were algorithmic challenges for every LLM evolution. There are still lots of potential improvements using the existing training data. But even if there wasn’t, we’ll still see loads of improvements in chat bots because of other techniques.

            Edit: typo