Technology

59589 readers

2891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

166

OpenAI, Google, Anthropic admit they can’t scale up their chatbots any further (pivot-to-ai.com)

submitted 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) by MajorHavoc@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 29 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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 1 points 2 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.dev 9 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

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 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca -3 points 7 hours ago

People that don't understand those terms are using them interchangeably

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca -5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.dev 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 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