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…
I really don't think your argument is very convincing. Some of your examples are downright ridiculous? "Jobs" Making a movie about one of the creation of some of one of the most famous companies on Earth is obviously…
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".
I think this was a failure. The gold standard should be that the if every human driver was replaced with an AI how well could the system function. This makes it look like things would be catastrophic. Thus, showing how…
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.
This seems like a strange comment to make since the above comment in no way suggests that we are currently in an AI winter.
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…
I don't get why people act like this definition is so circular. If you were to explain in detail what "transforms as a second rank tensor" means then it wouldn't be circular anymore. This just isn't the full definition.
> 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.
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…
I really don't think your argument is very convincing. Some of your examples are downright ridiculous? "Jobs" Making a movie about one of the creation of some of one of the most famous companies on Earth is obviously…
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".
I think this was a failure. The gold standard should be that the if every human driver was replaced with an AI how well could the system function. This makes it look like things would be catastrophic. Thus, showing how…
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.
This seems like a strange comment to make since the above comment in no way suggests that we are currently in an AI winter.
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…
I don't get why people act like this definition is so circular. If you were to explain in detail what "transforms as a second rank tensor" means then it wouldn't be circular anymore. This just isn't the full definition.
> 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.