← Back to context

Comment by rdtsc

15 days ago

Me in 2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44759781

> If it's on HN and is a meme at this point, it will end up in the training set.

> It's kind of fun to imagine that there is an intern in every AI company furiously trying to get nice looking svg pelicans on bicycles.

Google listened and assigned a few interns, I guess, for the task

That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw https://www.assbench.com/ posted a while back: "oh no, this is going to be somebody's job".

SVG is useful for actual tasks, not just looking good in a silly "benchmark"

We all said it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46978726 (8 months ago)

> How many pelican riding bicycle SVGs were there before this test existed? What if the training data is being polluted with all these wonky results...

But Simon has demonstrated before that asking for any animal doing something silly will still get similar results from the same model.

It's still clearly not a part of any model's training set in the sense of pelicanmaxxing in particular. It's either a capability to generate arbitrary SVGs (or even something broader), or no specific training at all.

  • Yet, they're all almost exactly the same in style and composition.

    • Certainly not because all labs are pelicanmaxxing on the same exact image. Most patterns are similar everywhere. That's the result of training on the same datasets and scraped web contaminated with other models' outputs, combined with similar training methods and resulting mode collapse. Try if e.g. dolphins knitting socks in spacesuits are similar on all/most models.

      4 replies →

Certainly true but I think the question is “does targeting the SVG pelican mean that the quality of all SVG output improves?” If so it’s a worthwhile thing to target.

Sadly, this is all that managers know to do: take a metric and try to optimize the heck out of it. They don't care about research, technology, "don't be evil", etc. And Google is run by managers now.

Expect Google models to be benchmaxxed as much as possible, but don't expect commensurate performance on real-world tasks.

  • >> this is all that managers know to do: take a metric and try to optimize the heck out of it. They don't care about research, technology

    This is not true. It is needless negative hyperbole that IMHO doesn't belong on HN.

    • I'm speaking from 30 years experience in the Valley, having worked at several big companies.

  • While this might be overly cynical, it's also a powerful validation of the exact feedback loop that you want to have in an organization.

    If what you say is true, then the next set of benchmarks will be written to illuminate the true reflection of real-world tasks. Then those get benchmaxxed so managers can show "numbers go up."

    Repeat enough times, and you get materially and genuinely improved products.

    The burden is on the press, outside researchers, and general tech industry to both write and care about the metrics that matter.

    • There's just one problem - culture eats strategy for breakfast. You cannot govern culture or improve culture with metrics.

      In large companies (Fortune 1000 etc.), you don't have much of a choice, the culture was eroded long ago, and corporate governance by metrics is a lesser of evils. But thankfully, not all companies are there yet.

Maybe so, and yet it's still not enough -- the pelicans all have flaws.

They look remarkably good, sure -- but not perfect.

I end up getting SVG output for all kinds of things, and never once have I asked for, or gotten, a pelican.