4 ms·
It's because it's not binary. The nature of the failure (errors where it 'forgot' to carry the one) suggest that it's doing something like basic arithmetic and
by fossuser 6y ago
It's because it's not binary.
The nature of the failure (errors where it 'forgot' to carry the one) suggest that it's doing something like basic arithmetic and making mistakes.
This is evidence in the direction of having a model of how to do basic arithmetic and evidence against memorization.
I'm not pretending that both outcomes mean it knows arithmetic. For example, if the outputs were random or if they only matched exact examples it had seen then it would look like memorization, but that isn't what's seen.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y agoAs I say in my previous comment the "evidence" is of a very low standard. This is what's reported in the paper: In addition, inspection of incorrect answers reveals that the model often makes mistakes such as not carrying a “1”, suggesting it is actually attempting to perform the relevant computation rather thanmemorizing a table. So, what is "often"? 100% of the time? 60% of the time? 30% of the time? Such a vague statement is no evidence of anything, much less the very strong claim made in the paper.