Thread

1. in_absentia · 1790086050 · focus · HN ↗

   So OpenAI is not a believer in recursive self-improvement after all?

   1. jrflo · 1790087352 · focus · HN ↗

      Read the article, that's not what this is about. Title is clickbait, they fired contractors for using AI to label data when the whole point of labeling data is to distill human knowledge into weights, not distill weights into weights.

      1. beepbooptheory · 1790088757 · focus · HN ↗

         What is the other way to interpret the title in your mind?

         1. [deleted] · 1790089994 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

         2. jrflo · 1790090262 · focus · HN ↗

            3rd party contractor hired to generate human labels uses AI generate labels, gets fired. "Training" is a lot different than "data labeling".

            1. beepbooptheory · 1790094696 · focus · HN ↗

               Why is it a lot different? Is the labeling less important or something?

               1. pixl97 · 1790099381 · focus · HN ↗

                  Think of labeling as establishing a ground truth. It's more important than training, but it's far less complex than training at an individual level. A kid can tell you what an ice cream cone looks like, but they cannot tell you the best algorithm to use to get the best model with the least power usage.

                  Labeling is more like working a checkout at Walmart. Just about anyone can do it with the smallest amount of training, but you have to ensure your labelers are not just scanning one item multiple times and bagging up the rest as your dataset can skew from reality since AI cannot just capture this data fully reliably at this point (well in many fields it can or can do even better than humans, but it's still lumpy as to where and why).

                  1. beepbooptheory · 1790157641 · focus · HN ↗

                     Sounds a whole lot like "training" even if it isn't training. I still wonder why gp is so angry..

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.