4 ms·
That's a fair criticism, original paper would be better. I linked to the blog because that's where I first read about this and it's more immediately accessible
by fossuser 6y ago
That's a fair criticism, original paper would be better.
I linked to the blog because that's where I first read about this and it's more immediately accessible.
[Edit: Paper Link, https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165]
In fact after reading these sections of the actual paper, it's hard to believe that you could have read it yourself and taken away the idea that it was memorization? Pages 22-23 in particular. Part of the reason I tend to link to good blog posts instead of academic papers is when you link to papers nobody reads them. Often people linking them haven't read them either (I've only read small parts).
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y agoI think you're saying I didn't read the paper, because I didn't draw the same conclusions from it as you did after reading a blog post about it? Again there's a simpler explanation: I read the paper and I drew different conclusions than you or your primary source. I give a very long explanation of why I drew those conclusions, above. To clarify, I discussed the exact same subject a couple of weeks ago, I think, after reading the GPT-3 paper. I made my original comment in this thread without re-reading the paper, so I misremembered what was in it. Then I re-read the relevant section (3.9.1. Arithmetic) to refresh my memory and made the very long comment above. That's in the intereste of full disclosure and so you don't have any reason to assume I didn't read the paper, which you shouldn't anyway.