3 ms·
This language bothers me deeply. So many people ask the system itself to describe what it is doing, for which it is absolutely incapable of doing. The system ha
by chaxor 3y ago
This language bothers me deeply. So many people ask the system itself to describe what it is doing, for which it is absolutely incapable of doing.
The system has no access to its internals.
Even academics are asking the LLM itself to describe what it's doing like idiots. I know that academia's intellect is slipping due to allowing too many people in, but this type of stupidity is just mind boggling.
- dinvlad 3y agoI like to preserve skepticism here as well, though probably blaming them won’t help the issue. But absolutely agreed, just listened to Gary Marcus’s podcast episode on how LLMs are already capable of making dad jokes, but they can’t do neither “deep” humor generation nor “deep” humor explanation very well, in part because they lack all of the cultural and experiential (“touchy-feely”) context of the humans, and an even bigger part since they are optimized for generation, not explanation, while humans are almost the opposite.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoI think you misunderstood my comment or I didn’t articulate the idea clearly. I’m simply arguing for a verbose or debug mode that can be toggled on to show how output was derived, not expecting an LLM to have awareness or understanding of itself or it’s internal workings.
- chaxor 3y agoThat's fair, an encoder system for which the full attention values and weights available is a useful tool. IMO encoder models are far more powerful and useful for devs than any of the decoder models.