This interview lasted over an hour. If he was answering wrong they should have said something.
I think this is disingenuous comparison. When we read a book we can estimate the amount of data we're taking in based on the character count (each character being represented by some fixed amount of bits). What you're…
Maybe you need to phrase it better. Like with a more specific direction of thinking.
I think he's talking about reasoning models.
Are you sure? I think "normies" would prefer to see and try on the clothes they buy.
I can give you the exact mathematical formula used to statistically optimize the output of a neural network from input examples. Can you do the same for the brain?
> But we are? That's our education system. That is not what the education system does. That's an obvious distortion of reality. People train over billions of documents to statistically predict the next word to gain and…
I don't really see how this implies the above commenter's statement is "simply not true".
This but with hate.
Why are you phrasing your correction in the form of a question? I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that he mistakenly thought it was a Stanford study because the link was from Stanford.
> Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base. That is not what an ad hominem is.
> It does exactly the same, predicts tokens, That is an absolutely wild claim you've made. You're being way to presumptious.
> Models don't have access to "reality" This is an explanation of why models "hallucinate" not a criticism for the provided definition of hallucination.
I think the problem with your post is that it started a list of "incorrect statements" with a statement that wasn't incorrect.
You're missing the point. Those kind of narrow AI applications are not the motivation for the trillions of dollars being poured into AI. Of course AI has a variety of applications many disciplines, as it has for…
He probably meant to say "vector" the second time he said "matrix".
Expecting every little fact to have an "authoritative source" is just annoying faux intellectualism. You can ask someone why they believe something and listen to their reasoning, decide for yourself if you find it…
I think his point is it means a lot in the context of investors seeking to make returns on their investments.
Well I think you have to ask what the goal of the researchers are. In the case of fluid mechanics they may research new algorithms that make into the software mechanical engineers use, even if they don't understand the…
> That’s also the reason NaN !== NaN. If NaN behaved like a number and had a value equal to itself, well, you could accidentally do math with it: NaN / NaN would result in 1, and that would mean that a calculation…
I don't think his phrasing implies that.
> "a computable function that grows faster than BB(N)" In the context that Scott Aaronson was using it probably yes as that is necessary for the most straightforward /obvious proof to work.
As a person who doesn't do much tinkering the thing I dislike about this article is it doesn't really get across to me why the author likes tinkering so much or why I should either. Not saying that the article is bad…
I think the issue is related to notion of a "direct" proof vs "proof by contradiction". What I gave was a proof by contradiction. Once you start thinking about the philosophy of proofs it, it's an interesting question…
I think the way you phrase it is important. If you want to test what he said you should try and create 100 independent prompts in which you ask for a number between 1 and 10.
This interview lasted over an hour. If he was answering wrong they should have said something.
I think this is disingenuous comparison. When we read a book we can estimate the amount of data we're taking in based on the character count (each character being represented by some fixed amount of bits). What you're…
Maybe you need to phrase it better. Like with a more specific direction of thinking.
I think he's talking about reasoning models.
Are you sure? I think "normies" would prefer to see and try on the clothes they buy.
I can give you the exact mathematical formula used to statistically optimize the output of a neural network from input examples. Can you do the same for the brain?
> But we are? That's our education system. That is not what the education system does. That's an obvious distortion of reality. People train over billions of documents to statistically predict the next word to gain and…
I don't really see how this implies the above commenter's statement is "simply not true".
This but with hate.
Why are you phrasing your correction in the form of a question? I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that he mistakenly thought it was a Stanford study because the link was from Stanford.
> Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base. That is not what an ad hominem is.
> It does exactly the same, predicts tokens, That is an absolutely wild claim you've made. You're being way to presumptious.
> Models don't have access to "reality" This is an explanation of why models "hallucinate" not a criticism for the provided definition of hallucination.
I think the problem with your post is that it started a list of "incorrect statements" with a statement that wasn't incorrect.
You're missing the point. Those kind of narrow AI applications are not the motivation for the trillions of dollars being poured into AI. Of course AI has a variety of applications many disciplines, as it has for…
He probably meant to say "vector" the second time he said "matrix".
Expecting every little fact to have an "authoritative source" is just annoying faux intellectualism. You can ask someone why they believe something and listen to their reasoning, decide for yourself if you find it…
I think his point is it means a lot in the context of investors seeking to make returns on their investments.
Well I think you have to ask what the goal of the researchers are. In the case of fluid mechanics they may research new algorithms that make into the software mechanical engineers use, even if they don't understand the…
> That’s also the reason NaN !== NaN. If NaN behaved like a number and had a value equal to itself, well, you could accidentally do math with it: NaN / NaN would result in 1, and that would mean that a calculation…
I don't think his phrasing implies that.
> "a computable function that grows faster than BB(N)" In the context that Scott Aaronson was using it probably yes as that is necessary for the most straightforward /obvious proof to work.
As a person who doesn't do much tinkering the thing I dislike about this article is it doesn't really get across to me why the author likes tinkering so much or why I should either. Not saying that the article is bad…
I think the issue is related to notion of a "direct" proof vs "proof by contradiction". What I gave was a proof by contradiction. Once you start thinking about the philosophy of proofs it, it's an interesting question…
I think the way you phrase it is important. If you want to test what he said you should try and create 100 independent prompts in which you ask for a number between 1 and 10.