undefined | Better HN

0 pointscheema331y ago0 comments

> When humans are well trained, human inference absolutely destroys LLMs.

This isn't an apt comparison. You are comparing a human trained in a specific field to an LLM trained on everything. When an LLM is trained with a narrow focus as well, human brain cannot compete. See Garry Kasparov vs Deep Blue. And Deep Blue is very old tech.

0 comments

karmakaze1y ago

Also DeepBlue isn't an ML it's an "expert system, relying upon rules and variables defined and fine-tuned by chess masters and computer scientists" from Wikipedia. AlphaGo (or AlphaGo Zero) would be a better example.

eru1y ago

> AlphaGo (or AlphaGo Zero) would be a better example.

Yes, they are better examples, but still not great examples: neither of them are LLMs.

In general, I have very high hopes for AI, but I would be surprised if LLMs are the one universal hammer for every nail. (We already have lots of other network architectures.)

CuriouslyC1y ago

1. Deep blue isn't a LLM. I don't care how well you train a LLM, it's not going to be more efficient than an optimally trained human, not even close. It's actually arrogant as hell to assume that we can achieve a higher level of energy efficiency than billions of years of evolution, particularly so early in the game. 2. Chess is a closed form system with a finite and relatively small number of position compared with the real world.

eru1y ago

> It's actually arrogant as hell to assume that we can achieve a higher level of energy efficiency than billions of years of evolution, particularly so early in the game.

You are right that LLMs are still far off from the performance of the human brain. Both in absolute terms, and also relative to the power used.

However, I don't see anything arrogant here. We have lots of machines that can do many tasks more energy efficient (and better) than humans. Both mechanical and intellectual tasks.

CuriouslyC1y ago

It's not arrogance to think you can create a tool that does one thing the brain does better than the brain for less power. It's arrogance to think that you can do everything the brain does for less power. Living organisms have been relentlessly honed for the ability to efficiently solve varied problems across ~10^40 experiments over the age of the earth. If some marginally intelligent monkeys think they can build an error corrected, digital system that encompasses all of that functionality while using less power, I'd say that's obviously arrogance, particularly if it hasn't been the subject of a civilizational drive for a few millennia already.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

karmakaze1y ago

eru1y ago

> AlphaGo (or AlphaGo Zero) would be a better example.

Yes, they are better examples, but still not great examples: neither of them are LLMs.

In general, I have very high hopes for AI, but I would be surprised if LLMs are the one universal hammer for every nail. (We already have lots of other network architectures.)

CuriouslyC1y ago

eru1y ago

> It's actually arrogant as hell to assume that we can achieve a higher level of energy efficiency than billions of years of evolution, particularly so early in the game.

You are right that LLMs are still far off from the performance of the human brain. Both in absolute terms, and also relative to the power used.

However, I don't see anything arrogant here. We have lots of machines that can do many tasks more energy efficient (and better) than humans. Both mechanical and intellectual tasks.

CuriouslyC1y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse