915 items tagged “ai”
2024
OpenAI and Anthropic focused on building models and not worrying about products. For example, it took 6 months for OpenAI to bother to release a ChatGPT iOS app and 8 months for an Android app!
Google and Microsoft shoved AI into everything in a panicked race, without thinking about which products would actually benefit from AI and how they should be integrated.
Both groups of companies forgot the “make something people want” mantra. The generality of LLMs allowed developers to fool themselves into thinking that they were exempt from the need to find a product-market fit, as if prompting is a replacement for carefully designed products or features. [...]
But things are changing. OpenAI and Anthropic seem to be transitioning from research labs focused on a speculative future to something resembling regular product companies. If you take all the human-interest elements out of the OpenAI boardroom drama, it was fundamentally about the company's shift from creating gods to building products.
We've doubled the max output token limit for Claude 3.5 Sonnet from 4096 to 8192 in the Anthropic API.
Just add the header
"anthropic-beta": "max-tokens-3-5-sonnet-2024-07-15"to your API calls.
Facebook Is the ’Zombie Internet’. Ever since Facebook started to become infested with weird AI-generated images of shrimp Jesus - with thousands of comments and likes - I've been wondering how much of that activity is real humans as opposed to yet more bots.
Jason Koebler has been on the Facebook AI slop beat for a while. In this superb piece of online investigative reporting he dives deep into an attempt to answer that question, using multiple Facebook burner accounts and contacting more than 300 users who have commented on that kind of image.
I endlessly tried to talk to people who commented on these images, but I had no luck at all. Over the course of several months, I messaged 300 people who commented on bizarre AI-generated images, which I could only do 20 or so at a time before Facebook stopped letting me send messages for several hours. I also commented on dozens of images myself, asking for any human who had also commented on the image to respond to me. Across those hundreds of messages, I got four total responses.
Jacob also talked to Khan Schoolcraft, a moderator of the Um, isn’t that AI? group, who said:
In my experience, the supermajority of engagement on viral AI Facebook pages is just as artificially-generated as the content they publish. When exploring their comment sections, one will often see hundreds of bot-like comments interspersed with a few ‘real’ people sounding the alarm to no avail. [...]
Whether it's a child transforming into a water bottle cyborg, a three-armed flight attendant rescuing Tiger Jesus from a muddy plane crash, or a hybrid human-monkey baby being stung to death by giant hornets, all tend to have copy+pasted captions, reactions & comments which usually make no sense in the observed context.
So much of knowledge/intelligence involves translating ideas between fields (domains). Those domains are walls the keep ideas siloed. But LLMs can help break those walls down and encourage humans to do more interdisciplinary thinking, which may lead to faster discoveries.
And note that I am implying that humans will make the breakthroughs, using LLMs as translation tools when appropriate, to help make connections. LLMs are strongest as translators of information that you provide. BYOD: Bring your own data!
Imitation Intelligence, my keynote for PyCon US 2024
I gave an invited keynote at PyCon US 2024 in Pittsburgh this year. My goal was to say some interesting things about AI—specifically about Large Language Models—both to help catch people up who may not have been paying close attention, but also to give people who were paying close attention some new things to think about.
[... 10,624 words]The Death of the Junior Developer (via) Steve Yegge's speculative take on the impact LLM-assisted coding could have on software careers.
Steve works on Cody, an AI programming assistant, so he's hardly an unbiased source of information. Nevertheless, his collection of anecdotes here matches what I've been seeing myself.
Steve coins the term here CHOP, for Chat Oriented Programming, where the majority of code is typed by an LLM that is directed by a programmer. Steve describes it as "coding via iterative prompt refinement", and argues that the models only recently got good enough to support this style with GPT-4o, Gemini Pro and Claude 3 Opus.
I've been experimenting with this approach myself on a few small projects (see this Claude example) and it really is a surprisingly effective way to work.
Also included: a story about how GPT-4o produced a bewitchingly tempting proposal with long-term damaging effects that only a senior engineer with deep understanding of the problem space could catch!
I'm in strong agreement with this thought on the skills that are becoming most important:
Everyone will need to get a lot more serious about testing and reviewing code.
Fighting bots is fighting humans [...] remind you that "only allow humans to access" is just not an achievable goal. Any attempt at limiting bot access will inevitably allow some bots through and prevent some humans from accessing the site, and it's about deciding where you want to set the cutoff. I fear that media outlets and other websites, in attempting to "protect" their material from AI scrapers, will go too far in the anti-human direction.
Why The Atlantic signed a deal with OpenAI. Interesting conversation between Nilay Patel and The Atlantic CEO (and former journalist/editor) Nicholas Thompson about the relationship between media organizations and LLM companies like OpenAI.
On the impact of these deals on the ongoing New York Times lawsuit:
One of the ways that we [The Atlantic] can help the industry is by making deals and setting a market. I believe that us doing a deal with OpenAI makes it easier for us to make deals with the other large language model companies if those come about, I think it makes it easier for other journalistic companies to make deals with OpenAI and others, and I think it makes it more likely that The Times wins their lawsuit.
How could it help? Because deals like this establish a market value for training content, important for the fair use component of the legal argument.
My main concern is that the substantial cost to develop and run Al technology means that Al applications must solve extremely complex and important problems for enterprises to earn an appropriate return on investment.
We estimate that the Al infrastructure buildout will cost over $1tn in the next several years alone, which includes spending on data centers, utilities, and applications. So, the crucial question is: What $1tn problem will Al solve? Replacing low-wage jobs with tremendously costly technology is basically the polar opposite of the prior technology transitions I've witnessed in my thirty years of closely following the tech industry.
— Jim Covello, Goldman Sachs
Early Apple tech bloggers are shocked to find their name and work have been AI-zombified (via)
TUAW (“The Unofficial Apple Weblog”) was shut down by AOL in 2015, but this past year, a new owner scooped up the domain and began posting articles under the bylines of former writers who haven’t worked there for over a decade.
They're using AI-generated images against real names of original contributors, then publishing LLM-rewritten articles because they didn't buy the rights to the original content!
Yeah, unfortunately vision prompting has been a tough nut to crack. We've found it's very challenging to improve Claude's actual "vision" through just text prompts, but we can of course improve its reasoning and thought process once it extracts info from an image.
In general, I think vision is still in its early days, although 3.5 Sonnet is noticeably better than older models.
— Alex Albert, Anthropic
Anthropic cookbook: multimodal. I'm currently on the lookout for high quality sources of information about vision LLMs, including prompting tricks for getting the most out of them.
This set of Jupyter notebooks from Anthropic (published four months ago to accompany the original Claude 3 models) is the best I've found so far. Best practices for using vision with Claude includes advice on multi-shot prompting with example, plus this interesting think step-by-step style prompt for improving Claude's ability to count the dogs in an image:
You have perfect vision and pay great attention to detail which makes you an expert at counting objects in images. How many dogs are in this picture? Before providing the answer in
<answer>tags, think step by step in<thinking>tags and analyze every part of the image.
Vision language models are blind (via) A new paper exploring vision LLMs, comparing GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3 Sonnet and Claude 3.5 Sonnet (I'm surprised they didn't include Claude 3 Opus and Haiku, which are more interesting than Claude 3 Sonnet in my opinion).
I don't like the title and framing of this paper. They describe seven tasks that vision models have trouble with - mainly geometric analysis like identifying intersecting shapes or counting things - and use those to support the following statement:
The shockingly poor performance of four state-of-the-art VLMs suggests their vision is, at best, like of a person with myopia seeing fine details as blurry, and at worst, like an intelligent person that is blind making educated guesses.
While the failures they describe are certainly interesting, I don't think they justify that conclusion.
I've felt starved for information about the strengths and weaknesses of these vision LLMs since the good ones started becoming available last November (GPT-4 Vision at OpenAI DevDay) so identifying tasks like this that they fail at is useful. But just like pointing out an LLM can't count letters doesn't mean that LLMs are useless, these limitations of vision models shouldn't be used to declare them "blind" as a sweeping statement.
Content slop has three important characteristics. The first being that, to the user, the viewer, the customer, it feels worthless. This might be because it was clearly generated in bulk by a machine or because of how much of that particular content is being created. The next important feature of slop is that feels forced upon us, whether by a corporation or an algorithm. It’s in the name. We’re the little piggies and it’s the gruel in the trough. But the last feature is the most crucial. It not only feels worthless and ubiquitous, it also feels optimized to be so. The Charli XCX “Brat summer” meme does not feel like slop, nor does Kendrick Lamar’s extremely long “Not Like Us” roll out. But Taylor Swift’s cascade of alternate versions of her songs does. The jury’s still out on Sabrina Carpenter. Similarly, last summer’s Barbenheimer phenomenon did not, to me, feel like slop. Dune: Part Two didn’t either. But Deadpool & Wolverine, at least in the marketing, definitely does.
Claude: You can now publish, share, and remix artifacts. Artifacts is the feature Anthropic released a few weeks ago to accompany Claude 3.5 Sonnet, allowing Claude to create interactive HTML+JavaScript tools in response to prompts.
This morning they added the ability to make those artifacts public and share links to them, which makes them even more useful!
Here's my box shadow playground from the other day, and an example page I requested demonstrating the Milligram CSS framework - Artifacts can load most code that is available via cdnjs so they're great for quickly trying out new libraries.
hangout_services/thunk.js
(via)
It turns out Google Chrome (via Chromium) includes a default extension which makes extra services available to code running on the *.google.com domains - tweeted about today by Luca Casonato, but the code has been there in the public repo since October 2013 as far as I can tell.
It looks like it's a way to let Google Hangouts (or presumably its modern predecessors) get additional information from the browser, including the current load on the user's CPU. Update: On Hacker News a Googler confirms that the Google Meet "troubleshooting" feature uses this to review CPU utilization.
I got GPT-4o to help me figure out how to trigger it (I tried Claude 3.5 Sonnet first but it refused, saying "Doing so could potentially violate terms of service or raise security and privacy concerns"). Paste the following into your Chrome DevTools console on any Google site to see the result:
chrome.runtime.sendMessage(
"nkeimhogjdpnpccoofpliimaahmaaome",
{ method: "cpu.getInfo" },
(response) => {
console.log(JSON.stringify(response, null, 2));
},
);
I get back a response that starts like this:
{
"value": {
"archName": "arm64",
"features": [],
"modelName": "Apple M2 Max",
"numOfProcessors": 12,
"processors": [
{
"usage": {
"idle": 26890137,
"kernel": 5271531,
"total": 42525857,
"user": 10364189
}
}, ...
The code doesn't do anything on non-Google domains.
Luca says this - I'm inclined to agree:
This is interesting because it is a clear violation of the idea that browser vendors should not give preference to their websites over anyone elses.
Inside the labs we have these capable models, and they're not that far ahead from what the public has access to for free. And that's a completely different trajectory for bringing technology into the world that what we've seen historically. It's a great opportunity because it brings people along. It gives them intuitive sense for the capabilities and risks and allows people to prepare for the advent of bringing advanced AI into the world.
Jevons paradox (via) I've been thinking recently about how the demand for professional software engineers might be affected by the fact that LLMs are getting so good at producing working code, when prompted in the right way.
One possibility is that the price for writing code will fall, in a way that massively increases the demand for custom solutions - resulting in a greater demand for software engineers since the increased value they can provide makes it much easier to justify the expense of hiring them in the first place.
TIL about the related idea of the Jevons paradox, currently explained by Wikipedia like so:
[...] when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced.
Box shadow CSS generator (via) Another example of a tiny personal tool I built using Claude 3.5 Sonnet and artifacts. In this case my prompt was:
CSS for a slight box shadow, build me a tool that helps me twiddle settings and preview them and copy and paste out the CSS
I changed my mind half way through typing the prompt and asked it for a custom tool, and it built me this!
Here's the full transcript - in a follow-up prompt I asked for help deploying it and it rewrote the tool to use <script type="text/babel"> and the babel-standalone library to add React JSX support directly in the browser - a bit of a hefty dependency (387KB compressed / 2.79MB total) but I think acceptable for this kind of one-off tool.
Being able to knock out tiny custom tools like this on a whim is a really interesting new capability. It's also a lot of fun!
Voters in the Clapham and Brixton Hill constituency can rest easy - despite appearances, their Reform candidate Mark Matlock really does exist. [...] Matlock - based in the South Cotswolds, some 100 miles from the constituency in which he is standing - confirmed: "I am a real person." Although his campaign image is Al-generated, he said this was for lack of a real photo of him wearing a tie in Reform's trademark turquoise.
Home-Cooked Software and Barefoot Developers. I really enjoyed this talk by Maggie Appleton from this year's Local-first Conference in Berlin.
For the last ~year I've been keeping a close eye on how language models capabilities meaningfully change the speed, ease, and accessibility of software development. The slightly bold theory I put forward in this talk is that we're on a verge of a golden age of local, home-cooked software and a new kind of developer – what I've called the barefoot developer.
It's a great talk, and the design of the slides is outstanding.
It reminded me of Robin Sloan's An app can be a home-cooked meal, which Maggie references in the talk. Also relevant: this delightful recent Hacker News thread, Ask HN: Is there any software you only made for your own use but nobody else?
My favourite version of our weird new LLM future is one where the pool of people who can use computers to automate things in their life is massively expanded.
The other videos from the conference are worth checking out too.
The expansion of the jagged frontier of AI capability is subtle and requires a lot of experience with various models to understand what they can, and can’t, do. That is why I suggest that people and organizations keep an “impossibility list” - things that their experiments have shown that AI can definitely not do today but which it can almost do. For example, no AI can create a satisfying puzzle or mystery for you to solve, but they are getting closer. When AI models are updated, test them on your impossibility list to see if they can now do these impossible tasks.
Exorcising us of the Primer (via) Andy Matuschak talks about the need for educational technologists to break free from the siren's call of "The Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer" - the universal interactive textbook described by Neal Stephenson in his novel The Diamond Age.
The Primer offers an incredibly compelling vision, and Andy uses fifteen years of his own experience exploring related ideas to pick it apart and highlight its flaws.
I want to exorcise myself of the Primer. I want to clearly delineate what makes its vision so compelling—what I want to carry in my heart as a creative fuel. But I also want to sharply clarify the lessons we shouldn’t take from the Primer, and what it simply ignores. Then I want to reconstitute all that into something new, a vision I can use to drive my work forward.
On the Primer's authoritarianism:
The Primer has an agenda. It is designed to instill a set of values and ideas, and while it’s supportive of Nell’s curiosities, those are “side quests” to its central structure. Each of the twelve “Lands Beyond” focuses on different topics, but they’re not specific to Nell, and Nell didn’t choose them. In fact, Nell doesn’t even know the Primer’s goals for her—she’s never told. Its goals are its own privileged secret. Nell is manipulated so completely by the Primer, for so much of her life, that it’s hard to determine whether she has meaningful goals or values, other than those the Primer’s creators have deemed “good for her”.
I'm also reminded of Stephenson's piece of advice to people who may have missed an important lesson from the novel:
Kids need to get answers from humans who love them.
If you own the tracks between San Francisco and Los Angeles, you likely have some kind of monopolistic pricing power, because there can only be so many tracks laid between place A and place B. In the case of GPU data centers, there is much less pricing power. GPU computing is increasingly turning into a commodity, metered per hour. Unlike the CPU cloud, which became an oligopoly, new entrants building dedicated AI clouds continue to flood the market. Without a monopoly or oligopoly, high fixed cost + low marginal cost businesses almost always see prices competed down to marginal cost (e.g., airlines).
Chrome Prompt Playground.
Google Chrome Canary is currently shipping an experimental on-device LLM, in the form of Gemini Nano. You can access it via the new window.ai API, after first enabling the "Prompt API for Gemini Nano" experiment in chrome://flags (and then waiting an indeterminate amount of time for the ~1.7GB model file to download - I eventually spotted it in ~/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome Canary/OptGuideOnDeviceModel).
I got Claude 3.5 Sonnet to build me this playground interface for experimenting with the model. You can execute prompts, stream the responses and all previous prompts and responses are stored in localStorage.
Here's the full Sonnet transcript, and the final source code for the app.
The best documentation I've found for the new API is is explainers-by-googlers/prompt-api on GitHub.
gemma-2-27b-it-llamafile (via) Justine Tunney shipped llamafile packages of Google's new openly licensed (though definitely not open source) Gemma 2 27b model this morning.
I downloaded the gemma-2-27b-it.Q5_1.llamafile version (20.5GB) to my Mac, ran chmod 755 gemma-2-27b-it.Q5_1.llamafile and then ./gemma-2-27b-it.Q5_1.llamafile and now I'm trying it out through the llama.cpp default web UI in my browser. It works great.
It's a very capable model - currently sitting at position 12 on the LMSYS Arena making it the highest ranked open weights model - one position ahead of Llama-3-70b-Instruct and within striking distance of the GPT-4 class models.
The Super Effectiveness of Pokémon Embeddings Using Only Raw JSON and Images.
A deep dive into embeddings from Max Woolf, exploring 1,000 different Pokémon (loaded from PokéAPI using this epic GraphQL query) and then embedding the cleaned up JSON data using nomic-embed-text-v1.5 and the official Pokémon image representations using nomic-embed-vision-v1.5.
I hadn't seen nomic-embed-vision-v1.5 before: it brings multimodality to Nomic embeddings and operates in the same embedding space as nomic-embed-text-v1.5 which means you can use it to perform CLIP-style tricks comparing text and images. Here's their announcement from June 5th:
Together, Nomic Embed is the only unified embedding space that outperforms OpenAI CLIP and OpenAI Text Embedding 3 Small on multimodal and text tasks respectively.
Sadly the new vision weights are available under a non-commercial Creative Commons license (unlike the text weights which are Apache 2), so if you want to use the vision weights commercially you'll need to access them via Nomic's paid API.
Nomic do say this though:
As Nomic releases future models, we intend to re-license less recent models in our catalogue under the Apache-2.0 license.
Absolutely any time I try to explore something even slightly against commonly accepted beliefs, LLMs always just rehash the commonly accepted beliefs.
As a researcher, I find this behaviour worse than unhelpful. It gives the mistaken impression that there's nothing to explore.
We argued that ChatGPT is not designed to produce true utterances; rather, it is designed to produce text which is indistinguishable from the text produced by humans. It is aimed at being convincing rather than accurate. The basic architecture of these models reveals this: they are designed to come up with a likely continuation of a string of text. It’s reasonable to assume that one way of being a likely continuation of a text is by being true; if humans are roughly more accurate than chance, true sentences will be more likely than false ones. This might make the chatbot more accurate than chance, but it does not give the chatbot any intention to convey truths. This is similar to standard cases of human bullshitters, who don’t care whether their utterances are true; good bullshit often contains some degree of truth, that’s part of what makes it convincing.
Accidental GPT-4o voice preview (via) Reddit user RozziTheCreator was one of a small group who were accidentally granted access to the new multimodal GPT-4o audio voice feature. They captured this video of it telling them a spooky story, complete with thunder sound effects added to the background and in a very realistic voice that clearly wasn't the one from the 4o demo that sounded similar to Scarlet Johansson.
OpenAI provided a comment for this Tom's Guide story confirming the accidental rollout so I don't think this is a faked video.