3 ms·
If anything, it looks to me like the researchers are saying the opposite: We understand how this works, so it cannot be magic or special. The fact that you thin
by krageon 3y ago
If anything, it looks to me like the researchers are saying the opposite: We understand how this works, so it cannot be magic or special. The fact that you think it is means you are just wrong.
Sadly it is possible I have arrived at this conclusion due to previous experience with the academic world, which is ironically full of magical thinkers that will take any sort of AI advancement and scoff because it may mean they're no longer as special as they feel they must be. It is a very hostile environment.
- Certhas 3y agoThey are saying correctly that we _can_ understand the learning of models in a continuous fashion, and that we do not need to assume that at some stage something different than at other stages happens. So no emergence. This is massive because it means, for example, that you can study what is happening in these models with small ones that perform worse but are simpler to understand, and you're not missing something fundamental. I don't think they claim we already understand what is happening I these models though. I don't know what exactly you are talking about with your academia bashing. If anything it seems to me academia is just as awash as everywhere else with barely substantiated AI hype. Disparaging and psychologizing critical voices just makes it seem to me like you might be missing the point of academia...