3 ms·

If I am understanding correctly, your main point of differentiation is that the language model doesn't learn from its conversations. Compared to the initial tr

If I am understanding correctly, your main point of differentiation is that the language model doesn't learn from its conversations. Compared to the initial training of the model, this is a trivial amount of engineering effort and is likely something we will see within a year or less.

Muehe 4y ago
From my rather limited understanding "learning from the conversation" is already an existing feature that is simply limited to a "thread" session for users with the current interface. I guess feeding those back to the model is ultimately the goal of the current beta test though, the marketing material hints at it at least.
Jensson 4y ago
> this is a trivial amount of engineering effort I disagree and I have worked on Google search ranking, making models that learn is ridiculously hard. This model is impressive, but it still hasn't solved this part, and until they do solve it the blocker isn't engineering effort but research effort with unknown timeframes. When researches says a model "learns" all they mean is that they put the new data into the model, but the model is still as stupid as before so it doesn't really solve the real kind of learning humans do and the model would need to be able to do in order to be useful here.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  After a few days playing with this and using it for real work in some cases (having it bang out some PowerShell based on a description and follow-up modifications), I'm not sure that "the real kind of learning humans do" is even a necessary goal anymore. Here is a language model that doesn't "know" anything, it doesn't "understand" anything, it has no idea what an AST is or what the code it is producing does… But does it really matter? If that prompt "generate a PowerShell script that does X Y and Z" results in accurate code that meets the stated requirement, how it got there is an implementation detail. Give me what exists today, give it an ongoing knowledge of the things I am conversing with it on, take off the stupid guardrails and this is something I would gladly pay a significant amount of money every month for.

Muehe 4y ago

From my rather limited understanding "learning from the conversation" is already an existing feature that is simply limited to a "thread" session for users with the current interface. I guess feeding those back to the model is ultimately the goal of the current beta test though, the marketing material hints at it at least.

Jensson 4y ago

> this is a trivial amount of engineering effort I disagree and I have worked on Google search ranking, making models that learn is ridiculously hard. This model is impressive, but it still hasn't solved this part, and until they do solve it the blocker isn't engineering effort but research effort with unknown timeframes. When researches says a model "learns" all they mean is that they put the new data into the model, but the model is still as stupid as before so it doesn't really solve the real kind of learning humans do and the model would need to be able to do in order to be useful here.

Karunamon 4y ago
After a few days playing with this and using it for real work in some cases (having it bang out some PowerShell based on a description and follow-up modifications), I'm not sure that "the real kind of learning humans do" is even a necessary goal anymore. Here is a language model that doesn't "know" anything, it doesn't "understand" anything, it has no idea what an AST is or what the code it is producing does… But does it really matter? If that prompt "generate a PowerShell script that does X Y and Z" results in accurate code that meets the stated requirement, how it got there is an implementation detail. Give me what exists today, give it an ongoing knowledge of the things I am conversing with it on, take off the stupid guardrails and this is something I would gladly pay a significant amount of money every month for.