November 11th, 2024

GPTs Are Maxed Out

OpenAI's Orion model is expected to underperform compared to GPT-4, raising concerns about financial viability and diminishing returns in AI advancements, while new paradigms are being explored for future development.

Read original articleLink Icon
GPTs Are Maxed Out

OpenAI's anticipated next-generation AI model, referred to internally as Orion, is expected to be less revolutionary than previously claimed by CEO Sam Altman. While Orion does outperform its predecessors, the improvements are not as significant as the leap from GPT-3 to GPT-4. This raises concerns about the model's cost-effectiveness, as it may require more resources to operate, potentially disappointing shareholders. The scaling laws that AI companies have relied upon—believing that increasing model size and computational power would yield better performance—are now being questioned. Experts, including OpenAI's Noam Brown, have suggested that the financial feasibility of developing increasingly complex models may be reaching its limits. The article also references cognitive scientist Gary Marcus, who has long criticized the deep learning paradigm and its limitations, suggesting that the industry may be facing diminishing returns. As AI companies explore new paradigms, such as OpenAI's o1 model, which focuses on real-time computation and reinforcement learning, the future of generative AI remains uncertain. The potential for Orion to disappoint users and investors looms large, with critics already predicting a downturn for generative AI if expectations are not met.

- OpenAI's Orion model may not deliver the expected performance improvements over GPT-4.

- The financial viability of developing larger AI models is being questioned.

- Experts warn of diminishing returns in deep learning advancements.

- New AI paradigms, like OpenAI's o1, are being explored to address current limitations.

- The future of generative AI is uncertain, with potential backlash from users and investors.

Link Icon 10 comments
By @robertlagrant - 5 months
> and certainly not enough to satisfy users’ growing appetite for AGI

There is no AGI. No one is creating Minds from Iain M Banks books. It's the world's best autocomplete. It's if you look at the Earth once from space, and "recreate" it by making a giant disc that looks like that view of the Earth. Nothing behind it is like intelligence as we would think of it.

AI is going to do some amazing things still. AGI is just an unbelievably high bar.

By @throwup238 - 5 months
> Will anyone see the value in a chatbot that takes an hour to solve a problem?

Yes! The biggest usability issue with almost all the AI products I’ve used has been the termination problem, especially with fixed price offerings like ChatGPT. The LLM doesn’t actually have any time to “think” (however you might want to interpret that) except for the attention mechanism that visits each token.

I want to be able to query an llm, give it access to web search, and give it a time limit so that it keeps going, consuming sources a hundred pages deep, “thinking” and writing a report for me until it’s given a signal to terminate.

By @Ukv - 5 months
> March 2022. Cognitive scientist Gary Marcus publishes a scathing article: “Deep Learning Is Hitting a Wall.” [...] In March 2022, no less! Was he out of his mind? That’s what the experts said back then—amid laughter and barely concealed scorn. Yet, with the evidence The Information has now presented, Marcus seems almost prophetic.

Gary Marcus has been saying this since at least 2012:

> Yet deep learning may well be approaching a wall, much as I anticipated earlier, at beginning of the resurgence (Marcus, 2012)

To me it feels like having continually predicted rain throughout the longest dry-spell in history. Eventually you'll be right (assuming that we'll move to some other paradigm in due course), but it's hardly prophetic.

I think that the challenges of intelligence and non-shallow reasoning will inherently involve fighting against diminishing returns (which is what the supposedly broken scaling laws predict) regardless of technique. Same as for computer graphics - doubling the compute doesn't double the perceptual quality, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's hitting a wall.

By @goethes_kind - 5 months
With all the capital behind these LLM companies, I would be surprised if we don't see any architectural improvements that lead to better reasoning. Training bigger and bigger models is clearly not sustainable, so I'm sure all of them are working in this direction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time that AI has so much financial capital behind it.
By @thornewolf - 5 months
> The blind trust OpenAI and competitors like Google, Anthropic, or Meta put on the scaling laws—if you increase size, data, and compute you’ll get a better model—was unjustified. And how could it be otherwise! Scale was never a law of nature like gravity or evolution, but an observation of what was working at the time—just like Moore’s law, which today rests in peace, outmatched by the impenetrability of quantum mechanics and the geopolitical forces that menace Taiwan.

This is a self-contradicting paragraph. It cites quantum mechanics understanding as breaking down Moore's law while ignoring the fact that it has implications on our so-called "laws" of physics in just the same way.

I can imagine the author having originally written "physics" instead of "gravity" but needing to re-write the paragraph to squirm away from the contradiction they set up for themselves. I feel that this presentation is not intellectually honest.

By @qgin - 5 months
There is so much desire to hear this story —- that LLMs aren’t that cool and the hype is overblown —- that I’m just as skeptical of this as I am of AI companies promising an API for god.

A lot of people really really really want this to fail.