2 ms·
I mean.. doesn't your logic here advocate throwing away every "lower-bound" type of result in math, suggest that it's boring/trivial to answer the smallest LLM
by photonthug 3y ago
I mean.. doesn't your logic here advocate throwing away every "lower-bound" type of result in math, suggest that it's boring/trivial to answer the smallest LLM that speaks english ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07759 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07759 ), etc?
- bawolff 3y agoNo, just that a lower bound in and of itself isn't interesting without further justification as to why. Most non-tight lower bounds are trivial. > suggest that it's boring/trivial to answer the smallest LLM that speaks english ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07759 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07759 ), etc? That's kind of the opposite question. There's a difference between asking "What is the smallest LLM that can speak english" and "What size must an LLM at least be in order for it to be able to speak english". The former is an interesting question. The latter is trivial as it has an answer of "1". I believe the parent was talking about the latter type of lower bound not the former.