4 ms·
I kinda assume that work on LLMs published by major companies is a red herring. I worked at a company once, where four teams tried different techniques. The be
by hiddencost 3y ago
I kinda assume that work on LLMs published by major companies is a red herring.
I worked at a company once, where four teams tried different techniques. The best approach was shipped to users and the other three ended up as papers at a major conference.
- chaxor 3y agoI think it can be informative generally of what they may be targeting. Here, it seems that the interest is in somehow reducing the size and 'throwing away' some factual information for more reasoning capability (obviously this is very loose and uses undefined terms). The 'factual knowledge' only needs to be roughly available with a way to do a look up to recall information.
- baq 3y agoIf you think about a P=NP proof… you show it’s false and collect a million dollars, but if you prove it’s true, you sit tight on your buttocks and print money with your top secret solution. Just people playing the capitalism game.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoIt's all fun and games until you end up with companies doing "peer review" and purposefully tanking good papers, making it seem a particular research direction isn't fruitful, while secretly using that same work to get ahead of the competition.