Categories
GenAI

What I believe about GenAI (and what I’m doing about it)

I woke up on Sunday morning with the following question: what do I believe about GenAI – and what should I be doing in response? Based on what I’ve been reading, here is what I currently think:

  • GenAI is a revolution – cynics have dismissed GenAI as ‘fancy autocomplete’, but that ignores the magic of LLMs – both their ability to produce plausible text and their performance with previously difficult and imprecise tasks.
  • GenAI is also overhyped – a lot of the problem with GenAI is that some companies are over-promising. LLMs are not going to lead to AGI and are not going to replace skilled people in most situations.
  • The main benefit of LLMs is efficiency – LLMs are very good at some previously complicated tasks, and this will make those tasks much cheaper. I’m expecting this to produce a boom in programming as previously-expensive projects become feasible – similar to how Excel has produced a boom in accountancy.
  • There is a correction coming – there’s a huge amount of money invested in GenAI and I think it will be some time before this pays off. I’m expecting to see a crash come before long term growth. But that’s the same thing as happened with the 2000 dotcom crash.
  • RAG is boring – using RAG to find relevant data and interpret it rarely feels like a good user experience. In most cases, a decent search engine is faster and more practical.
  • There are exciting surprises coming – I suspect that the large-scale models from people like OpenAI have peaked in their effectiveness, but smaller-scale models promise some interesting applications.

I am going to spend some time over Christmas coding with GenAI tools. I’m already sold on ChatGPT as a tool for teaching new technology and thinking through debugging, but there are many more tools out there.

I’m also going to do some personal research on how people are using Llama and other small open-source models. There must be more to GenAI than coding assistants and RAG.

Categories
NaNoGenMo

Thoughts on NaNoGenMo 2024

I spent about 25 hours in November producing a novel via an LLM for NaNoGenMo 2024. It was an interesting experiment, although the book produced was not particularly engaging. There’s a flatness to LLM-generated prose which I didn’t overcome, despite the potential of the oral history format. I do think that generated novels can be compelling, even moving, so I will have another try next year.

Some things I learned from this:

  • I hadn’t realised how long and detailed prompts can be. My initial ones did not make full use of the context. Using gpt-4o-mini was cheap enough that I could essentially pass it prompts containing much of the work produced so far.
  • For drafting prompts, the ChatGPT web interface was more effective, because it maintains the full conversation as a state. Once I used this for experimenting with prompts, things moved much faster.
  • Evaluating the output is incredibly hard here. In a matter of minutes I can create a text that takes hours to read. Most of my reviews were done by random sampling, and I didn’t have time to properly examine the text’s wider structure.
  • It was also tricky to get consistent layouts from the LLM. Using JSON formats helped somewhat here, but at the cost of reducing the size of LLM responses.

22 books were completed this year and I’m looking forward to reviewing them. I have an idea for a different approach next year and will do some research in the meantime (starting with Lillian-Yvonne Bertram and Nick Monfort’s Output Anthology)