Skip Navigation
87 comments
  • Most people here don’t understand what this is saying.

    We’ve had “pure” human generated data, verifiably so since LLMs and ImageGen didn’t exist. Any bot generated data was easily filterable due to lack of sophistication.

    ChatGPT and SD3 enter the chat, generate nearly indistinguishable data from humans, but with a few errors here and there. These errors while few, are spectacular and make no sense to the training data.

    2 years later, the internet is saturated with generated content. The old datasets are like gold now, since none of the new data is verifiably human.

    This matters when you’ve played with local machine learning and understand how these machines “think”. If you feed an AI generated set to an AI as training data, it learns the mistakes as well as the data. Every generation it’s like mutations form until eventually it just produces garbage.

    Training models on generated sets slowly by surely fail without a human touch. Scale this concept to the net fractionally. When 50% of your dataset is machine generated, 50% of your new model trained on it will begin to deteriorate. Do this long enough and that 50% becomes 60 to 70 and beyond.

    Human creativity and thought have yet to be replicated. These models have no human ability to be discerning or sleep to recover errors. They simply learn imperfectly and generate new less perfect data in a digestible form.

  • This article is from June 12, 2023. That's practically stone-aged as far as AI technology has been progressing.

    The paper it's based on used a very simplistic approach, training AIs purely on the outputs of its previous "generation." Turns out that's not a realistic real-world scenario, though. In reality AIs can be trained on a mixture of human-generated and AI-generated content and it can actually turn out better than training on human-generated content alone. AI-generated content can be curated and custom-made to be better suited to training, and the human-generated stuff adds back in the edge cases that might disappear when doing repeated training generations.

  • now that the low hanging fruit of internet scraping is exhausted, we're gonna have to start purpose-building datasets. this will be expensive and might be the new bottleneck on AI progress.

  • Ok, seriously? Fuck this research. It's bullshit.

    Want to know how I can declare that so confidently? Because I wrote a program called duo. It's literally two chatbots instead of one, running locally on 5+ year old hardware. These are low powered llama's fine tuned by the community for general purpose last year

    I just played a DND campaign with a chatbot and her hallucinated girlfriend (ai 1 wrote the prompt for AI 2, no edits or modifications). I've never played DND before, but they said they wanted to go to a haunted escape room. I have been to one of the most haunted locations in America, so I decided to be DM, and apparently they come with their own dice. Tomorrow I'm going to send the transcript to a friend who was looking for a DND player

    Yes, clickbait is terrible training data, and low grade LLMs can really pump it out.

    I had enough fun I fell asleep at my desk, and I did nothing but describe a location I've been to and the sounds I heard (and some urban legends)...I could spend a month and have replaced myself in the experience.

    Other times I've let them run with no interaction on my part they've hallucinated (feasible) apps I'm not making to the point I could throw it into a design document, and games good enough to land on my to-do list.

    Why don't people see this for the miracle technology this is? If it isn't reliable on one pass, do a second to evaluate the first, another to run chain of thought on problem areas, another one to flesh it out and rinse and repeat if you need to.

    This is such a simple engineering problem it's not even funny

87 comments