Treści z minionego tygodnia (21.08)
Treści z minionego tygodnia (21.08)
AI bardziej kreatywne od ludzi, interesujące propozycje regulacji AI opublikowane w Foreign Affairs, GPT które nas pamięta, 19 narzędzi AI wartych wypróbowania, kiedy Marlboro zniknie z rynku
Jeśli chcesz zapoznać się z tylko jedną rzeczą:
Świetny tekst Ethana Mollicka o kreatywnych możliwościach AI, które w niezależnych badaniach przekroczyły już w wielu aspektach te ludzkie. Ponadto bardzo ciekawe uwagi na temat promptowania zero-shot i few-shot. Dwa fragmenty dla zachęty:
The first major paper is from my colleagues at Wharton. They staged an idea generation contest: pitting ChatGPT-4 against the students in a popular innovation class that has historically led to many startups. The researchers — Karan Girotra, Lennart Meincke, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl Ulrich — used human judges to assess idea quality, and found that ChatGPT-4 generated more, cheaper and better ideas than the students. Even more impressive, from a business perspective, was that the purchase intent from outside judges was higher for the AI-generated ideas as well! Of the 40 best ideas rated by the judges, 35 came from ChatGPT.
People get very hung up on the idea that you have to be great at prompting AIs with specific wording to get them to accomplish anything. But this just doesn’t seem to be the case in idea generation. In the paper comparing AI to crowdsourcing, the authors tested three kinds of prompts: basic ones that stated the problem, more advanced ones that gave the AI a persona to be more like a human solver (“You are a Technical and Creative Professional, located in Europe.”), and a very advanced one that asked the AI to take the perspective of particular famous experts. While there were some differences between these groups, no one approach clearly dominated. So I wouldn’t worry too much about the exact wording of the prompt, you can experiment to see what might work best.
Warto zapoznać się z całym tekstem:
Teksty:
Niezwykle ciekawy tekst z propozycjami ponadnarodowych rozwiązań zarządzania rozwojem sztucznej inteligencji opublikowany w Foreign Affairs przez Iana Bremmera i Mustafę Suleymana. Autorzy piszą m.in:
AI governance must also be as impermeable as possible. Unlike climate change mitigation, where success will be determined by the sum of all individual efforts, AI safety is determined by the lowest common denominator: a single breakout algorithm could cause untold damage. Because global AI governance is only as good as the worst-governed country, company, or technology, it must be watertight everywhere—with entry easy enough to compel participation and exit costly enough to deter noncompliance. A single loophole, weak link, or rogue defector will open the door to widespread leakage, bad actors, or a regulatory race to the bottom.
Cały tekst:
Bardzo ciekawie, jak zwykle Linus Ekenstam. Tutaj fragment:
Currently, our interactions are fragmented between isolated AIs. These AIs lack continuity; they don't remember us nor recognize each other's existence. This fragmentation is a hurdle we must overcome. After nearly ten months of daily interactions, it's frustrating that ChatGPT lacks the ability to recall previous exchanges. It does not know my name, it does not know my favorite colour and It does not know what I do for a living. It's high time AI remembered who we are.
Pozostałe teksty: