The death of Stackoverflow is one of these events where the site has been completely killed by AI and yet its contents is completely necessary for AI to know about solving programming problems. Its death will mark the end of AIs ability to learn how to solve programming issues. Its cannibalizing itself in the process, as it destroys its sources it destroys its own ability to learn.
It’s not just that, it’s shitting where it eats. People are using it to fill the internet with disinformation, then it trains itself on it’s own disinformation, and breeds even worse disinformation. This is why AI can never be smarter than it was in 2021.
On top of that, due to the indiscriminate DDOSing of the entire internet by AI bots, websites have been blocking any web crawlers that are not Google, which just contributes to their monopoly.
This is why AI can never be smarter than it was in 2021.
You’re completely wrong. First of all, datasets are getting bigger and objectively better. Secondly, technologies and methods of model training become dramatically more complex. Yes, AI content can create echo for itself, but it’s a solvable issue.
Anyone who disagrees with this fact should do a reality check and learn a little more about the current AI state. In 2021 we didn’t even have reasoning in models.
The model architecture will still improve obviously. But the quality of the training data has been irreversibly altered and will only get worse with time.
It would be true if dataset’s composing mechanism was nothing but a blind internet scraping.
But it’s not so simple. There’s many hundreds of quality and trust filters that were created solely to prevent such things. As I said, it’s a solvable issue, even if most folks here really believe that the smartest AI was buried somewhere in 2021
What it have to do with OpenAI? It’s not what I’m talking about.
Nonetheless, it’s kind of fun to see so much downvotes on my comment. Some people are so blinded by their hate (well deserved, by the way) that they will deny something that obvious.
Our key finding is that by injecting information through an external synthetic data verifier, whether a human or a better model, synthetic retraining will not cause model collapse.
Lol, so to make a great model, they just need to have an even better one available first or a human who can verify every single thing it ingests.
Our key finding is that by injecting information through an external synthetic data verifier, whether a human or a better model, synthetic retraining will not cause model collapse.
Yeah if you have a source of truth then your model is basically getting trained on that.
My point was that having a verifier means your not really training a model on another model’s data, it’s basically as if you get new raw data from a non AI source
This assumes everything is valid on the external. If one slop cluster feeds off another - a slopveyor? - then there is nothing external for the validation hall-monitor to compare against. They’re trusting another model’s output as if it were gospel.
It is evident that it has intelligence, it outputs intelligent responses usually adequate to its input, even if it’s badly phrased. What it doesn’t have is sentience, conscience, and a learning loop.
This is true, depending on what you mean by smarter. They are undeniably more capable. However, the trendy, cool things is to hate on AI, rejecting all else. Sure, capitalism sucks, and the powerful rich people and companies who control AI suck. AI itself, though, can very easily result in massive benefits for humanity as a whole.
“AI” is garbage generator, that consumes our resources to output mediocre slop. Case in point is your PFP.
It’s neither “trendy” nor “cool”, just common opinion, as more and more people get to try it and see how useless it actually is, for anything beyond average (often empirically wrong) output.
Recent LLMs are very capable at doing almost all simple computing tasks. At some point in the future, we will have AI that is more generally useful than current LLMs. If and when we have truly general purpose AI, it could benefit humanity in countless ways. It could also continue to cause harm. We can’t know for sure.
At some point in the future, we will have AI that is more generally useful than current LLMs. If and when we have truly general purpose AI, it could benefit humanity in countless ways
The death of Stackoverflow is one of these events where the site has been completely killed by AI and yet its contents is completely necessary for AI to know about solving programming problems. Its death will mark the end of AIs ability to learn how to solve programming issues. Its cannibalizing itself in the process, as it destroys its sources it destroys its own ability to learn.
It’s not just that, it’s shitting where it eats. People are using it to fill the internet with disinformation, then it trains itself on it’s own disinformation, and breeds even worse disinformation. This is why AI can never be smarter than it was in 2021.
On top of that, due to the indiscriminate DDOSing of the entire internet by AI bots, websites have been blocking any web crawlers that are not Google, which just contributes to their monopoly.
You’re completely wrong. First of all, datasets are getting bigger and objectively better. Secondly, technologies and methods of model training become dramatically more complex. Yes, AI content can create echo for itself, but it’s a solvable issue.
Anyone who disagrees with this fact should do a reality check and learn a little more about the current AI state. In 2021 we didn’t even have reasoning in models.
The model architecture will still improve obviously. But the quality of the training data has been irreversibly altered and will only get worse with time.
It would be true if dataset’s composing mechanism was nothing but a blind internet scraping.
But it’s not so simple. There’s many hundreds of quality and trust filters that were created solely to prevent such things. As I said, it’s a solvable issue, even if most folks here really believe that the smartest AI was buried somewhere in 2021
I see someone’s been suckling the OpenAI teet.
What it have to do with OpenAI? It’s not what I’m talking about.
Nonetheless, it’s kind of fun to see so much downvotes on my comment. Some people are so blinded by their hate (well deserved, by the way) that they will deny something that obvious.
You are the only one being blinded by AI marketing and hype.
Ok, lol.
Model collapse isn’t a thing anymore. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.16657v1
Lol, so to make a great model, they just need to have an even better one available first or a human who can verify every single thing it ingests.
Hmm, call me skeptical on this claim.
Yeah if you have a source of truth then your model is basically getting trained on that.
It’s like already having the answer
The point is that it only needs to comprise a very small part of the model.
My point was that having a verifier means your not really training a model on another model’s data, it’s basically as if you get new raw data from a non AI source
This assumes everything is valid on the external. If one slop cluster feeds off another - a slopveyor? - then there is nothing external for the validation hall-monitor to compare against. They’re trusting another model’s output as if it were gospel.
LOL OK
I’m pretty sure AI is objectively smarter today than it was 5 years ago.
Since LLMs literally can’t learn, no. They’re just increasingly tweaked to seem even more convincing.
Objectively + smarter, huh.
It is not alive and cannot really think, so I doubt it’s smarter. It likely contains a bit more knowledge and a better interconnected network for it
Whether said knowledge is of better quality than 5 years ago is up for debate though.
How can something with no intelligence be smarter?
It is evident that it has intelligence, it outputs intelligent responses usually adequate to its input, even if it’s badly phrased. What it doesn’t have is sentience, conscience, and a learning loop.
Evident to whom exactly?
There’s better integration with all sorts of other sources of truth beyond the LLM training, which makes it seem smarter.
Actually it just appears smarter because people are objectively dumber than they were 5 years ago. “AI” is actually stagnate.
This is true, depending on what you mean by smarter. They are undeniably more capable. However, the trendy, cool things is to hate on AI, rejecting all else. Sure, capitalism sucks, and the powerful rich people and companies who control AI suck. AI itself, though, can very easily result in massive benefits for humanity as a whole.
“AI” is garbage generator, that consumes our resources to output mediocre slop. Case in point is your PFP.
It’s neither “trendy” nor “cool”, just common opinion, as more and more people get to try it and see how useless it actually is, for anything beyond average (often empirically wrong) output.
Recent LLMs are very capable at doing almost all simple computing tasks. At some point in the future, we will have AI that is more generally useful than current LLMs. If and when we have truly general purpose AI, it could benefit humanity in countless ways. It could also continue to cause harm. We can’t know for sure.
I know, for sure.
You truly don’t, though. You believe it. That doesn’t make it true. We do not have enough data to know what the future holds regarding AI.
– You. Just now.
Full self driving next year.
We already have it
Sure you do. In your colony on Mars.
How fucking gullible can you get, jfc.
More capable doesnt mean its smarter. A hammer can be made to be more capable but that doesn’t make it smart.
That’s not 1:1, and like I said, it depends on what you mean by smarter.
And yet, they have not created the AI that could do without it. Any day now, promise!
There would be a wisdom in AI companies fighting to NOT have their products in use on websites that produce the best handle content for them to eat.