All those big corp rushing to the AI race, should have maybe thought hard first on how to label/watermark/sign content so that we know for sure what is human made and what is not. They are now gonna choke on their own shit because even AI can’t tell what is AI generated. They though they pulled the ultimate trick when humans couldn’t tell… Joke’s on them now
This is the consequence of letting companies release and monetize whatever they want, without any proof of safety or criminal liability of the consequences. This is how we ended up with asbestos polluted land/structures, a lead polluted atmosphere, acid rain and deadly waterways, a GHG polluted atmosphere, etc, etc.
We let corporations monetize and mass produce anything they want without evidence of safety or recyclability, and we don’t even hold them liable when they poison everything and everyone.
Capitalism is like a drug dealer trying to produce the most addictive product. It is not based around long term… anything. It’s based around short-term everything.
Wow, this is a peak bad science reporting headline. I hate to be the one to break the news but no, this is deeply misleading. We all want AI to hit it’s downfall, but these issues with recursive training data or training on small datasets have been near enough solved for 5+ years now. The nature paper is interesting because it explains the modality of how specific kinds of recursion impact broadly across model types, this doesn’t mean AI is going to crawl back into pandoras box. The opposite, in fact, since this will let us design even more robust systems.
I’ve read the source nature article (skimmed though the parts that were beyond my understanding) and I did not get the same impression.
I am aware that LLM service providers regularly use AI generated text for additional training (from my understanding this done to “tune” the results to give a certain style). This is not a new development.
From my limited understanding, LLM model degeneracy is still relevant in the medium to long term. If an increasing % of your net new training content is originally LLM generated (and you have difficulties in identifying LLM generated content), it would stand to reason that you would encounter model degeneracy eventually.
I am not saying you’re wrong. Just looking for more information on this issue.
Ah, to clarify: Model Collapse is still an issue - one for which mitigation techniques are already being developed and applied, and have been for a while. While yes currently LLM content is harder to train against, there’s no reason that must always hold true - this paper actually touches on that weird aspect! Right now, we have to be careful to design with model collapse in mind and work to mitigate it manually, but as the technology improves it’s theorized that we’ll hit a point at which models coalesce towards stability, not collapse, even when fed training data that was generated by an LLM. I’ve seen the concept called Generative Bootstrapping or the Bootstrap Ladder (it’s a new enough concept that we haven’t all agreed on a name for it yet. we can only hope someone comes up with something better because wow the current ones suck…). We’re even seeing some models that are starting to do this coalesce-towards-stability thing, though only in some extremely niche applications. Only time will tell if all models are able to do this stable-coalescing or if it’s only possible in some cases.
My original point though was just that this headline is fairly sensationalist, and that people shouldn’t take too much hope from this collapse because we’re both aware of it, and are working to mitigate it (exactly like the paper itself cautions us to do)
I still find it difficult to get my head around how a decrease in novel training data will not eventually cause problems (even with techniques to work around this in the short term, which I am sure work well on a relative basis).
A bit of an aside, I also have zero trust in the people behind current LLM, both the leadership (e.g. Altman) or the rank and file. If it’s in their interests do downplay the scope and impact of model degeneracy, they will not hesitate to lie about it.
Yikes. Well. I’ll be over here, conspiring with the other NASA lizard people on how best to deceive you by politely answering questions on a site where maaaaybe 20 total people will actually read it. Good luck getting your head around it, there’s lots of papers out there that might help (well, assuming I’m not lying to you about those, too).
Weird, I can see the thumbnail (too small to really appreciate this description) but when I click through there’s no image. Did my ad blocker remove it?
(edit: no, turning off the ad blocker didn’t help)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Good
All those big corp rushing to the AI race, should have maybe thought hard first on how to label/watermark/sign content so that we know for sure what is human made and what is not. They are now gonna choke on their own shit because even AI can’t tell what is AI generated. They though they pulled the ultimate trick when humans couldn’t tell… Joke’s on them now
I agree, screw them - but watermarking text was never effective and most likely never will
This is the consequence of letting companies release and monetize whatever they want, without any proof of safety or criminal liability of the consequences. This is how we ended up with asbestos polluted land/structures, a lead polluted atmosphere, acid rain and deadly waterways, a GHG polluted atmosphere, etc, etc.
We let corporations monetize and mass produce anything they want without evidence of safety or recyclability, and we don’t even hold them liable when they poison everything and everyone.
Capitalism is like a drug dealer trying to produce the most addictive product. It is not based around long term… anything. It’s based around short-term everything.
Wow, this is a peak bad science reporting headline. I hate to be the one to break the news but no, this is deeply misleading. We all want AI to hit it’s downfall, but these issues with recursive training data or training on small datasets have been near enough solved for 5+ years now. The nature paper is interesting because it explains the modality of how specific kinds of recursion impact broadly across model types, this doesn’t mean AI is going to crawl back into pandoras box. The opposite, in fact, since this will let us design even more robust systems.
I’ve read the source nature article (skimmed though the parts that were beyond my understanding) and I did not get the same impression.
I am aware that LLM service providers regularly use AI generated text for additional training (from my understanding this done to “tune” the results to give a certain style). This is not a new development.
From my limited understanding, LLM model degeneracy is still relevant in the medium to long term. If an increasing % of your net new training content is originally LLM generated (and you have difficulties in identifying LLM generated content), it would stand to reason that you would encounter model degeneracy eventually.
I am not saying you’re wrong. Just looking for more information on this issue.
Ah, to clarify: Model Collapse is still an issue - one for which mitigation techniques are already being developed and applied, and have been for a while. While yes currently LLM content is harder to train against, there’s no reason that must always hold true - this paper actually touches on that weird aspect! Right now, we have to be careful to design with model collapse in mind and work to mitigate it manually, but as the technology improves it’s theorized that we’ll hit a point at which models coalesce towards stability, not collapse, even when fed training data that was generated by an LLM. I’ve seen the concept called Generative Bootstrapping or the Bootstrap Ladder (it’s a new enough concept that we haven’t all agreed on a name for it yet. we can only hope someone comes up with something better because wow the current ones suck…). We’re even seeing some models that are starting to do this coalesce-towards-stability thing, though only in some extremely niche applications. Only time will tell if all models are able to do this stable-coalescing or if it’s only possible in some cases.
My original point though was just that this headline is fairly sensationalist, and that people shouldn’t take too much hope from this collapse because we’re both aware of it, and are working to mitigate it (exactly like the paper itself cautions us to do)
Thanks for the reply.
I guess we’ll see what happens.
I still find it difficult to get my head around how a decrease in novel training data will not eventually cause problems (even with techniques to work around this in the short term, which I am sure work well on a relative basis).
A bit of an aside, I also have zero trust in the people behind current LLM, both the leadership (e.g. Altman) or the rank and file. If it’s in their interests do downplay the scope and impact of model degeneracy, they will not hesitate to lie about it.
Yikes. Well. I’ll be over here, conspiring with the other NASA lizard people on how best to deceive you by politely answering questions on a site where maaaaybe 20 total people will actually read it. Good luck getting your head around it, there’s lots of papers out there that might help (well, assuming I’m not lying to you about those, too).
This was a general comment, not aimed at you. Honestly, it wasn’t my intention to accuse you specifically. Apologies for that.
We should generate lots of AI nonsense and pet AInscrape it and index it. AIpocalypse!
No shit…
I especially love the image, which is both a literal and a figurative illustration of AI failure.
It’s clearly meant to be an ouroborus made out of tech. The AI image generator left out the key trait - it’s supposed to be eating itself.
Weird, I can see the thumbnail (too small to really appreciate this description) but when I click through there’s no image. Did my ad blocker remove it?
(edit: no, turning off the ad blocker didn’t help)
I don’t totally understand how or when article image headers populate.
deleted by creator
Also societal models.