7 ms·

One thing that has surprised me (and I should've known that it wasn't great at it), but it is terrible at creating bounding boxes around things it's not trained

One thing that has surprised me (and I should've known that it wasn't great at it), but it is terrible at creating bounding boxes around things it's not trained on (like bounding parts on a PCB schematic.)

amelius 1y ago
So this tells us that it does not _understand_ what it is doing, really. No real intelligence here. Might as well use an old-school YOLO network for the task.
- ta8645 1y ago
  It's just behaving like a child. A child could draw a bounding box around a dog and a cat, but would fail if you told them to draw a box around the transistors of a PCB. They have no idea what a transistor is, or what it looks like. They lack the knowledge and maturity. But you would never claim the child doesn't _understand_ what they're doing, at least not to imply that they're forever incapable of the task.
  - amelius 1y ago
    Yeah, but a child does one-shot learning much better. Just tell it to find the black rectangles and it will draw boxes around the transistors of a PCB, no extra training required.
    - ta8645 1y ago
      Perhaps. But I think you'll find there are a lot of black rectangles on a PCB that aren't actually transistors. You'll end up having to teach the child a lot more if you want accurate results. And that's the same kind of training you'll have to give to an LLM. In either case, your assertion that one _understands_, and the other doesn't, seems like motivated reasoning, rather than identifying something fundamental about the situation.
      - amelius 1y ago
        I mean, problem solving with loose specs is always going to be messy. But at least with a child I can quickly teach it to follow simple orders, while this AI requires hours of annotating + training, even for simple changes in instructions.
        ta8645 1y ago
        Humans are the beneficiaries of millions of years of evolution, and are born with innate pattern matching abilities that we don't need "training" for; essentially our pre-training. Of course, it is superior to the current generation of LLMs, but is it fundamentally different? I don't know one way or the other to be honest, but judging from how amazing LLMs are given all their limitations and paucity of evolution, I wouldn't bet against it. The other problem with LLMs today, is that they don't persist any learning they do from their everyday inference and interaction with users; at least not in real-time. So it makes them harder to instruct in a useful way. But it seems inevitable that both their pre-training, and ability to seamlessly continue to learn afterward, should improve over the coming years.
      - graemep 1y ago
        Then you explain transistors have three wires coming of them.
  - sealeck 1y ago
    > It's just behaving like a child. No it's not.

amelius 1y ago

So this tells us that it does not _understand_ what it is doing, really. No real intelligence here. Might as well use an old-school YOLO network for the task.

ta8645 1y ago
It's just behaving like a child. A child could draw a bounding box around a dog and a cat, but would fail if you told them to draw a box around the transistors of a PCB. They have no idea what a transistor is, or what it looks like. They lack the knowledge and maturity. But you would never claim the child doesn't _understand_ what they're doing, at least not to imply that they're forever incapable of the task.
- amelius 1y ago
  Yeah, but a child does one-shot learning much better. Just tell it to find the black rectangles and it will draw boxes around the transistors of a PCB, no extra training required.
  - ta8645 1y ago
    Perhaps. But I think you'll find there are a lot of black rectangles on a PCB that aren't actually transistors. You'll end up having to teach the child a lot more if you want accurate results. And that's the same kind of training you'll have to give to an LLM. In either case, your assertion that one _understands_, and the other doesn't, seems like motivated reasoning, rather than identifying something fundamental about the situation.
    - amelius 1y ago
      I mean, problem solving with loose specs is always going to be messy. But at least with a child I can quickly teach it to follow simple orders, while this AI requires hours of annotating + training, even for simple changes in instructions.
      - ta8645 1y ago
        Humans are the beneficiaries of millions of years of evolution, and are born with innate pattern matching abilities that we don't need "training" for; essentially our pre-training. Of course, it is superior to the current generation of LLMs, but is it fundamentally different? I don't know one way or the other to be honest, but judging from how amazing LLMs are given all their limitations and paucity of evolution, I wouldn't bet against it. The other problem with LLMs today, is that they don't persist any learning they do from their everyday inference and interaction with users; at least not in real-time. So it makes them harder to instruct in a useful way. But it seems inevitable that both their pre-training, and ability to seamlessly continue to learn afterward, should improve over the coming years.
    - graemep 1y ago
      Then you explain transistors have three wires coming of them.
- sealeck 1y ago
  > It's just behaving like a child. No it's not.