3 ms·
> Except, that the LLMs are only working when the instructions they are "understanding" are in their training set. > Try something that was not there and you s
by School-Cotton 4y ago
> Except, that the LLMs are only working when the instructions they are "understanding" are in their training set.
> Try something that was not there and you see only garbage as result.
This is just wrong. Why do people keep repeating this myth? Is it because people refuse to accept that humans have successfully created a machine that is capable of some form of intelligence and reasoning?
Pay $20 for a month of ChatGPT-4. Play with it for a few minutes. You’ll very quickly find that it is reasoning, not just regurgitating training data.
- hutzlibu 4y ago"Pay $20 for a month of ChatGPT-4. Play with it for a few minutes. " I do. And it is useful. "You’ll very quickly find that it is reasoning, not just regurgitating training data. " I just come to a different conclusion as it indeed fails for everything genuinely new I am asking it. Common problems do work, even in new context. For example it can give me wgsl code, to do raycasts on predefined boxes and circles in a 2D context, even though it likely has not seen wgsl code that does this - but it has seen other code doing this and it has seen how to transpile glsl to wgsl. So you might already call this "reasoning", but I don't. With asking questions I can very quickly get to the limits of the "reasons" and "understanding" it has of the domain.
- junofan 4y agoI dunno, it’s pretty clearly madlibs. But at least when you ask GPT-4 to write a new Sir Mix-a-Lot song, it doesn’t spit out “Baby Got Back” verbatim like GPT-3.5.