4 ms·
The annoying thing about this argument is that, to the degree it solves my problem, I don't actually care how it works. In the last 6 months I have seen so man
by nullsense 3y ago
The annoying thing about this argument is that, to the degree it solves my problem, I don't actually care how it works.
In the last 6 months I have seen so many cycles of models getting released, people complaining they don't do this and that, better models getting released, people complaining they do more than they used to but still not everything, models being stacked together to bridge yet more if the gaps, people having less to complain about but complaining again, and I'm sure people will release better stacked models.
The point is GPT was the same thing as GPT-2, and GPT-3. GPT-4 is maybe slightly different but not by much. But I can actually do useful work with GPT-4, and so I no longer care what anyone has to say. I just use it to solve the portion of my problems that it has proven to me that it can and I move on with my day.
If someone on the internet wants to get their knickers in a twist over the semantics, then that's cool. In the meantime other people will just continue to train better and better models as existing models get complained about and the amount of useful work I can do with it will keep going up as a result.
- BulgarianIdiot 3y agoIt's not even an argument. It's just stupid denialism. It reminds me of the people insisting on the cusp of abolishing slavery, that African Americans are not technically people, so they can't really think, and so on. And providing lots and lots of pseudo-scientific, but plausibly sounding (at the time) and partially technically correct reasons why this is so. An example of this is the phrenology scene in Django Unchained. You can always dress your bullshit in half-truths. In this case, this person's description of AI is not wrong, but... it also described human intelligence. There's absolutely no difference.