• @imadabouzu
    link
    English
    183 months ago

    Yeah, this lines up with what I have heard, too. There is always talk of new models, but even the stuff in the pipeline not yet released isn’t that differentiable from the existing stuff.

    The best explanation of strawberry is that it isn’t any particular thing, it’s rather a marketing and project framing, both internal and external, that amounts to… cost optimizations, and hype driving. Shift the goal posts, tell two stories: one is if we just get affordable enough, genAI in a loop really can do everything (probably much more modest, when genAI gets cheap enough by several means, it’ll have several more modest and generally useful use cases, also won’t have to be so legally grey). The other is that we’re already there and one day you’ll wake up and your brain won’t be good enough to matter anymore, or something.

    Again, this is apparently the future of software releases. :/

    • David GerardOPMA
      link
      English
      193 months ago

      Basically there isn’t significant improvement to be had in the tokeniser, because it’s already been trained on all the data on earth. So all they have left is overengineering.

      • @UnseriousAcademic
        link
        English
        143 months ago

        Does this mean they’re not going to bother training a whole new model again? I was looking forward to seeing AI Mad Cow Disease after it consumed an Internet’s worth of AI generated content.

        • David GerardOPMA
          link
          English
          93 months ago

          I think they will do whatever gets more investor cash

        • @anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          83 months ago

          If you change the tokenizer you have to retrain from scratch, but you can do so with the old, unpolluted data.

          It’s genius if you think about it,* you can waste energy and tell your investors it’s a new better model, while staying upstream from the river you pollute.
          * at least for consultants, compute providers and other middle men.

          • @UnseriousAcademic
            link
            English
            43 months ago

            I remember one time in a research project I switched out the tokeniser to see what impact it might have on my output. Spent about a day re-running and the difference was minimal. I imagine it’s wholly the same thing.

            *Disclaimer: I don’t actually imagine it is wholly the same thing.

            • David GerardOPMA
              link
              English
              43 months ago

              there’s a research result that the precise tokeniser makes bugger all difference, it’s almost entirely the data you put in

              because LLMs are lossy compression for text

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                33 months ago

                latent space go brrrr

      • @corbin
        link
        English
        93 months ago

        Calling it now: codepoint-level non-tokenizing, with a remapping step to only recognize the most popular thousands of codepoints, would outperform what OpenAI has forced themselves into using. Evidence is circumstantial but strong, e.g. how arithmetic isn’t learned right because BPE tokenizers obscure Arabic digits. They can’t backpedal on this without breaking some of their API and re-pretraining a model, and they make a big deal about how expensive GPT pretraining is, so they’re stuck in their local minimum.

          • @UnseriousAcademic
            link
            English
            43 months ago

            The only viable use case, in my opinion, is to utilise its strong abilities in SolidGoldMagicarp to actualise our goals in the SolidGoldMagicarp sector and achieve increased margins on SolidGoldMagicarp.

  • @swlabr
    link
    English
    103 months ago

    OpenAI somehow managed to outdo Apple in vacuous increment based hype