3 ms·
> which is clearly an overstatement meant to clear up hype, but is untrue It all depends on your definition of knowledge. Under a certain definition you could
by Voloskaya 6y ago
> which is clearly an overstatement meant to clear up hype, but is untrue
It all depends on your definition of knowledge. Under a certain definition you could say that GPT-3 knows basically nothing.
If someone teaches me to repeat perfectly something very smart in a language I don't know, without explaining to me what that thing is, do I have knowledge about this?
The same argument can be made about those kind of models, the knowledge they have is about the structure of the language and what word is most likely to come next, but they have no way to ground those words in actual relation with the world.
- yorak 6y agoAka. the Chinese room argument. However, I'm not so sure us people are little more than just pattern matching machines. When I start to talk (or write, as I'm doing now), the words kind of just flow out. I can make the argument, that I understand the "real" world, but do I really?
- Voloskaya 6y ago> I'm not so sure us people are little more than just pattern matching machines Yes that's what leads to multiple definition of what knowledge really is. Yann LeCun believe we are more than just that, hence why he is saying GPT-3 would have no knowledge.