This is the same company that started as a nonprofit dedicated to open AI safety research, then became a capped-profit entity, then effectively closed-source, then dropped the cap, and is now pursuing full for-profit conversion. Every single guardrail they've set for themselves has been quietly revised or removed once it became inconvenient. Anyone want to bet on how long those exclusions last?
I used to write off Annie's statements as mad raving, but the more I see how Sam acts the more I'm starting to think she might be telling the truth after all.
I don't want to hunt the details on each of theses releases, but
* You can use less GPUs if you decrease batch size and increase number of steps, which would lead to a longer training time
* FP8 is pretty efficient, if Grok was trained with BF16 then LLama 4 should could need less GPUs because of that
* Depends also on size of the model and number of tokens used for training, unclear whether the total FLOPS for each model is the same
* MFU/Maximum Float Utilization can also vary depending on the setup, which also means that if you're use better kernels and/or better sharding you can reduce the number of GPUs needed
That's the point. With the old models they all failed to produce a wine glass that is completley to the brim full. Because you can't find that a lot in the data they used for training.
I obviously have no idea if they added real or synthetic data to the training set specifically regarding the full-to-the-brim wineglass test, but I fully expect that this prompt is now compromised in the sense that because it is being discussed in the public sphere, it's has inherently become part of the test suite.
Remember the old internet adage that the fastest way to get a correct answer online is to post an incorrect one? I'm not entirely convinced this type of iterative gap finding and filling is really much different than natural human learning behavior.
> I'm not entirely convinced this type of iterative gap finding and filling is really much different than natural human learning behavior.
Take some artisan, I'll go with a barber. The human person is not the best of the best, but still a capable barber, who can implement several styles on any head you throw at them. A client comes, describes certain style they want. The barber is not sure how to implement such a style, consults with master barber beside, that barber describes the technique required for that particular style, our barber in question comes and implements that style. Probably not perfectly as they need to train their mind-body coordination a bit, but the cut is good enough that the client is happy.
There was no traditional training with "gap finding and filling" involved. The artisan already possessed core skill and knowledge required, was filled on the particulars of their task at hand and successfully implemented the task. There was no looking at examples of finished work, no looking at example of process, no iterative learning by redoing the task a bunch of times.
So no, human learning, at least advanced human learning, is very much different from these techniques. Not that they are not impressive on their own, but let's be real here.
I think there is a critical aspect of human visual learning which machine leanring cant replicate because it is prohibitively expensive. When we look at things as children we are not just looking at a single snapshot. When you stare at an object for a few seconds you have practically injested hundreds of slightly variated images of that object. This gets even more interesting when you take into account real world is moving all the time, so you are seeing so many things from so many angles. This is simply undoable with compute.
Then explain blind children? Or blind & deaf children? There's obviously some role senses play in development but there's clearly capabilities at play here that are drastically more efficient and powerful than what we have with modern transformers. While humans learn through example, they clearly need a lot fewer examples to generalize off of and reason against.
> Then explain blind children
I was only talking about vision tasks as an example. You can extend the idea to any sense.
> While humans learn through example, they clearly need a lot fewer examples to generalize off of and reason against.
Human brain has been developing over millenia. machines start from zero. What if this few example learning is just an emergent capbaility of any
"leanring function" given enough compute and training.
I think my point is that communication is the biggest contributor to brain development more than anything and communication is what powers our learning. Effective learners learn to communicate more with themselves and to communicate virtually with past authors through literature. That isn’t how LLMs work. Not sure why that would be considered objectionable. LLMs are great but we don’t have to pretend like they’re actually how brains work. They’re a decent approximation for neurons on today’s silicon - useful but nowhere near the efficiency and power of wetware.
Also as for touch, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that the amount of data from touch rivals the amount of content on the internet or that you just learn about mistakes one example at a time.
There are so many points to consider here im not sure i can address them all.
- Airplanes dont have wings like birds but can fly. and in some ways are superior to birds. (some ways not)
- Human brains may be doing some analogue of sample augmentation which gives you some multiple more equivalent samples of data to train on per real input state of environment. This is done for ml too.
- Whether that input data is text, or embodied is sort of irrelevant to cognition in general, but may be necessary for solving problems in a particular domain. (text only vs sight vs blind)
> Airplanes dont have wings like birds but can fly. and in some ways are superior to birds. (some ways not)
I think you're saying exactly what I'm saying. Human brains work differently from LLMs and the OP comment that started this thread is claiming that they work very similarly. In some ways they do but there's very clear differences and while clarifying examples in the training set can improve human understanding and performance, it's pretty clear we're doing something beyond that - just from a power efficiency perspective humans consume far less energy for significantly more performance and it's pretty likely we need less training data.
to be honest i dont really care if they work the same or not. I just like that they do work and find it interesting.
i dont even think peoples brains work the same as eachother. half of people cant even visually imagine an apple.
Neural networks seem to notice and remember very small details, as if they have access to signals from early layers. Humans often miss the minor details. Theres probably a lot more signal normalization happening. That limits calorie usage and artifacts the features.
I dont think that this is necessarily a property neural networks cant have. I think it could be engineered in. For now though seems like were making a lot of progress even without efficiency constraints so nobody cares.
Even if they did, I’d assume the association of “full” and this correct representation would benefit other areas of the model. I.e., there could (/should?) be general improvement for prompts where objects have unusual adjectives.
So maybe training for litmus tests isn’t the worst strategy in the absence of another entire internet of training data…
A lot of other things are rare in datasets, let alone correctly labeled. Overturned cars (showing the underside), views from under the table, people walking on the ceiling with plausible upside down hair, clothes, and facial features etc etc
There is no one correct way to interpert 'full'. If you go to a wine bar and ask for a full glass of wine, they'll probably interpert that as a double. But you could also interpert it the way a friend would at home, which is about 2-3cm from the rim.
Personally I would call a glass of wine filled to the brim 'overfilled', not 'full'.
I think you're missing the context everyone else has - this video is where the "AI can't draw a full glass of wine" meme got traction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=160F8F8mXlo
The prompts (some generated by ChatGPT itself, since it's instructing DALL-E behind the scenes) include phrases like "full to the brim" and "almost spilling over" that are not up to interpretation at all.
People were telling the models explicitly to fill it to the brim, and the models were still producing images where it was filled to approximately the half-way point.
Generating an image of a completely full glass of wine has been one of the popular limitations of image generators, the reason being neural networks struggling to generalise outside of their training data (there are almost no pictures on the internet of a glass "full" of wine). It seems they implemented some reasoning over images to overcome that.
Looks amazing,can you please also create a unconventional image like the clock at 2:35 , I tried it something like this with gemini when some redditor asked it and it failed so wondering if 4o does do it
I tried and it failed repeatedly (like actual error messages):
> It looks like there was an error when trying to generate the updated image of the clock showing 5:03. I wasn’t able to create it. If you’d like, you can try again by rephrasing or repeating the request.
A few times it did generate an image but it never showed the right time. It would frequently show 10:10 for instance.
If it tried and failed repeatedly, then it was prompting DALL-E, looking at the results, then prompting DALL-E again, not doing direct image generation.
No... OpenAI said it was "rolling out". Not that it was "already rolled out to all users and all servers". Some people have access already, some people don't. Even people who have access don't have it consistently, since it seems to depend on which server processes your request.
I’m using 4o and it gets time wrong a decent chunk but doesn’t get anything else in the prompt incorrect. I asked for the clock to be 4:30 but got 10:10. OpenAI pro account.
Why does it sound like this isn't reasoning on images directly but rather just dall e as some other comment said , I will type the name of the person here (coder543)
On the web version, click on the image to make it larger. In the upper right corner, there is an (i) icon, which you can click to reveal the DALL-E prompt that GPT-4o generated.
