>"Emergent abilities" in that paper is an extraordinarily poor communication of the idea that larger models can do more than smaller models, which should be a s

>"Emergent abilities" in that paper is an extraordinarily poor communication of the idea that larger models can do more than smaller models, which should be a surprise to no one. Nothing on the face of the earth can be a sum of more than their parts. It's called conservation of mass and conservation of energy. So based off of your logic how can the term "emergent ability" even exist? Why do we even use the term? You're getting hung up on a language quirk. Abilities aren't being built out of thin air, the term "emergent ability" is just an expression for "unexpected abilities". Even you as a human are a sum of it's parts. There's no nonsense being spread here. Experts and eminent researchers including the father of modern AI (Hinton) ALL use the term "emergent abilities". Are you an expert? Why is your opinion on this "spreading of nonsense" and why is it directly contradictory to expert opinions? Clearly you have logic that these experts and researchers haven't thought about. Can you spell it out step by step exactly what makes you more utterly clear about the "nonsense" then the experts who in actuality claim they don't fully understand what's going on? I'm not being sarcastic here, there is a huge contingent of people on HN who are totally dismissing LLMs and it would be a disservice not for them and you to not allow them to spell out their logic clearly. But what I'm seeing in your paragraph is just an investigation on vocabulary on what is meant by "emergent abilities"