So let me get this straight. In April, OpenAI raised $300M against a 29B valuation. And now, 5 months later, employees are selling shares against a 90B evaluation.
If the company really tripled in valuation in 5 months, you would never sell right?
Hallucinations are not a "huge unsolved issue" but a "huge unsolvable issue" given how RNNs (including transformer LLMs) work. I read somewhere (don't remember why) that Sam Altman has started to rebrand hallucination as feature ('creativity' — which is defendable I think) already and not as a problem that needs to be solved.
"LLMs will likely never deliver on the promise that they are somehow close to AGI."
That's being generous. There is nothing in LLMs that is even remotely connected to solving AGI. Zilch. This insane valuation is based mostly on hype.
If anything, LLMs (and generative AI in general) are a complete waste of time and resources if AGI is the goal. That has been my position since the beginning of the deep learning revolution. This does not mean that the technology is useless or unimportant. It is just irrelevant to cracking AGI.
The costs will go down for these LLM's as hardware improves and more efficient algorithms are found. So the operating costs will decrease as they have been significantly over the last few years. It's definitely a profitable business for all the coders out there that will be paying $20 a month for it, and the businesses that want synthetic data. So there's a viable business there. It's kinda risky valuing openAI that high because they were only slightly ahead of the pack, and there's no reason to believe that could continue when other companies like Facebook and Google can catch up very easily. The smaller companies like Huggingface are quite promising as well.
The difference between human hallucinations (e.g. dreams and daydreams) and LLM hallucinations is that for the vast majority of humans the vast majority the time, humans can tell when they're hallucinating. LLMs can't.
There are potential solutions to this, as Andy X Andersen outlined in the comments. Yet as Bill Benzon noted, some (if not all) of the most practical of these technically take place outside the model.
However, the fact that they're external isn't really a blocker to implementation; in fact, there are already validation steps outside the model to restrict the output, and to the end user they're transparent. So, I expect we'll see external validation to reduce (but not eliminate) hallucinations.
I doubt, though, that will reduce the legal liability enough to prevent some companies from banning use of LLMs by their employees at work (which quite a few already do). No matter how much insulation you add, making shit up doesn't play well with corporate CYA.
Counting money is so uncool already. “This is the magic of big data” (Medium.com 2023). Something that tech-gurus often parrot, about bypassing the need to actually understand anything in detail. Why? Because you can simply place your ‘faith’ in the “truth of digital information” (Wired Magazine). ‘End of Theory’ by Chris Anderson (2008) speculated about a future without the need for “scientific method and dedication”. As erroneous or eerie, the moronic vision points to a constant stream of validation and “post truth”. Earlier we placed our faith in sky gods and now in big data, AI and information technology. To me it seems that big data (as well as it’s fallacy) are a logical outcome of Reductionism. Hedging on the belief that complex systems can be understood (and also mimicked) if we dismantle, study and copy each element in isolation. Agreed that such a practice sounds great, but only if it can keep pace with our experience and reality. But it is proving to be insufficient from the onset.
Silly thinking. If I were an employee owning an early-stage chunk valued at 90-BILLION dollars of course I would be trying to sell a slice of that wad, even if I thought it was going to the moon!! Sell a third, it will be life changing, and if the keeps going up, you will be even richer with the remaining 2/3rds. That is a smart strategy no matter what you think of your companies chances.
(still I also worry about 90-billion. that is google level equity, but will all the capital chasing this dream why do we expect the winner to command a google-like lead in this new market.... unless Open-AI remains technologically superior.. in which case it could easily be worth that. (but I am doubting it will remain technologically in a different category.)
Quick side bar: “The profit isn’t there. Supposedly OpenAI is on track to make a billion dollars in revenue this year, but…” if companies like OpenAI with big tech partnerships who can sprinkle AI in any of their huge product bases are struggling to make profit, imagine the other side - “open source” players aren’t making any revenue they are just raising money rounds after rounds.
I feel you may be right here. On a more personal note, what do you think about AI systems training their systems on your own writing? This very post for example. It's already started. Read about this important topic in the my latest offering: https://boodsy.substack.com/p/the-ai-bots-are-coming-for-your-substack
The upshot is that it invested a lot and there are risks. It bets that many companies will find enough value in supervised assistants that they will be willing to pay for that, and that the tech will continue to improve. Both reasonable assumptions.
> LLMs will likely never deliver on the promise that they are somehow close to AGI.
What do you recommend in terms of neural architectures to get compositional, casual, symbolic representation and reasoning?
LLMs are amazing next word predictor models and any problems related to language where the accurate meaning of words isn't the most important (grammar, translation, poems, summarization, expansion e.t.c)
OpenAI would be much better if it was only trained on open source information. Top of the list for chatgpt sorcee is NYT, CNN, and the other MSM propaganda outlets. Ask Chatgpt yourself. It’s honest in this regard. 😎.
The training issue is a killer. How do you keep a model up to date? Right now you have to retrain the whole thing from scratch. As you point out, Gary, that's expensive. Are they going to do that yearly? Every two, three, five years? It's a problem inherent in neural architectures, where processing is spread over each "neuron." The issue's been known for a long time. It's clearly stated in that 1988 Fodor and Pylyshyn article. I know of some work in image processing directed to mitigating the problem. I have no idea whether anyone's pursing that in the transformer space.
So let me get this straight. In April, OpenAI raised $300M against a 29B valuation. And now, 5 months later, employees are selling shares against a 90B evaluation.
If the company really tripled in valuation in 5 months, you would never sell right?
Hallucinations are not a "huge unsolved issue" but a "huge unsolvable issue" given how RNNs (including transformer LLMs) work. I read somewhere (don't remember why) that Sam Altman has started to rebrand hallucination as feature ('creativity' — which is defendable I think) already and not as a problem that needs to be solved.
"LLMs will likely never deliver on the promise that they are somehow close to AGI."
That's being generous. There is nothing in LLMs that is even remotely connected to solving AGI. Zilch. This insane valuation is based mostly on hype.
If anything, LLMs (and generative AI in general) are a complete waste of time and resources if AGI is the goal. That has been my position since the beginning of the deep learning revolution. This does not mean that the technology is useless or unimportant. It is just irrelevant to cracking AGI.
As a general rule, net biz works kinda like this...
1) get in to a fad early
2) build like crazy
3) cash out at the peak of the fad
4) repeat
If OpenAI employees are in a position to secure their family's future now, grab the money and run seems a pretty good plan.
The costs will go down for these LLM's as hardware improves and more efficient algorithms are found. So the operating costs will decrease as they have been significantly over the last few years. It's definitely a profitable business for all the coders out there that will be paying $20 a month for it, and the businesses that want synthetic data. So there's a viable business there. It's kinda risky valuing openAI that high because they were only slightly ahead of the pack, and there's no reason to believe that could continue when other companies like Facebook and Google can catch up very easily. The smaller companies like Huggingface are quite promising as well.
The difference between human hallucinations (e.g. dreams and daydreams) and LLM hallucinations is that for the vast majority of humans the vast majority the time, humans can tell when they're hallucinating. LLMs can't.
There are potential solutions to this, as Andy X Andersen outlined in the comments. Yet as Bill Benzon noted, some (if not all) of the most practical of these technically take place outside the model.
However, the fact that they're external isn't really a blocker to implementation; in fact, there are already validation steps outside the model to restrict the output, and to the end user they're transparent. So, I expect we'll see external validation to reduce (but not eliminate) hallucinations.
I doubt, though, that will reduce the legal liability enough to prevent some companies from banning use of LLMs by their employees at work (which quite a few already do). No matter how much insulation you add, making shit up doesn't play well with corporate CYA.
Counting money is so uncool already. “This is the magic of big data” (Medium.com 2023). Something that tech-gurus often parrot, about bypassing the need to actually understand anything in detail. Why? Because you can simply place your ‘faith’ in the “truth of digital information” (Wired Magazine). ‘End of Theory’ by Chris Anderson (2008) speculated about a future without the need for “scientific method and dedication”. As erroneous or eerie, the moronic vision points to a constant stream of validation and “post truth”. Earlier we placed our faith in sky gods and now in big data, AI and information technology. To me it seems that big data (as well as it’s fallacy) are a logical outcome of Reductionism. Hedging on the belief that complex systems can be understood (and also mimicked) if we dismantle, study and copy each element in isolation. Agreed that such a practice sounds great, but only if it can keep pace with our experience and reality. But it is proving to be insufficient from the onset.
I agree there is too much hype and it wasn't proved yet that OpenAI has a sustainable and profitable business strategy.
The current AI revolution is for real. If the earliest investors will get their reward is not so clear.
Silly thinking. If I were an employee owning an early-stage chunk valued at 90-BILLION dollars of course I would be trying to sell a slice of that wad, even if I thought it was going to the moon!! Sell a third, it will be life changing, and if the keeps going up, you will be even richer with the remaining 2/3rds. That is a smart strategy no matter what you think of your companies chances.
(still I also worry about 90-billion. that is google level equity, but will all the capital chasing this dream why do we expect the winner to command a google-like lead in this new market.... unless Open-AI remains technologically superior.. in which case it could easily be worth that. (but I am doubting it will remain technologically in a different category.)
Quick side bar: “The profit isn’t there. Supposedly OpenAI is on track to make a billion dollars in revenue this year, but…” if companies like OpenAI with big tech partnerships who can sprinkle AI in any of their huge product bases are struggling to make profit, imagine the other side - “open source” players aren’t making any revenue they are just raising money rounds after rounds.
I feel you may be right here. On a more personal note, what do you think about AI systems training their systems on your own writing? This very post for example. It's already started. Read about this important topic in the my latest offering: https://boodsy.substack.com/p/the-ai-bots-are-coming-for-your-substack
economist.com has an article about Microsoft's bet into generative AI. (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/09/27/how-microsoft-could-supplant-apple-as-the-worlds-most-valuable-firm)
The upshot is that it invested a lot and there are risks. It bets that many companies will find enough value in supervised assistants that they will be willing to pay for that, and that the tech will continue to improve. Both reasonable assumptions.
> LLMs will likely never deliver on the promise that they are somehow close to AGI.
What do you recommend in terms of neural architectures to get compositional, casual, symbolic representation and reasoning?
LLMs are amazing next word predictor models and any problems related to language where the accurate meaning of words isn't the most important (grammar, translation, poems, summarization, expansion e.t.c)
OpenAI would be much better if it was only trained on open source information. Top of the list for chatgpt sorcee is NYT, CNN, and the other MSM propaganda outlets. Ask Chatgpt yourself. It’s honest in this regard. 😎.
The training issue is a killer. How do you keep a model up to date? Right now you have to retrain the whole thing from scratch. As you point out, Gary, that's expensive. Are they going to do that yearly? Every two, three, five years? It's a problem inherent in neural architectures, where processing is spread over each "neuron." The issue's been known for a long time. It's clearly stated in that 1988 Fodor and Pylyshyn article. I know of some work in image processing directed to mitigating the problem. I have no idea whether anyone's pursing that in the transformer space.
See Unified Probabilistic Deep Continual Learning through Generative Replay and Open Set Recognition, https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8040093
Stupid question: how are they selling shares if it's not a publicly-tradable company?