4 ms·
> I think we somehow need to enable "always-training" and I'm not sure anyone has the faintest idea how. To ask the naive question, why can't we just keep cont
by danenania 3y ago
> I think we somehow need to enable "always-training" and I'm not sure anyone has the faintest idea how.
To ask the naive question, why can't we just keep continually training it with new stuff? If it takes, say, a year to ingest approximately the whole internet, tacking on a single large codebase should probably take something like an additional few seconds if we consider what fraction that codebase is of the full training set. I know it's not that simple for a lot of reasons, but it doesn't seem obvious that fundamentally new methods are needed to do this.
- SanderNL 3y agoThis new piece of information can impact all previous information in unknown ways. To give a dramatic and superficial example, let's say you just found out you have been living inside the Truman Show. This impacts, if not everything, then a whole lot of what you know about your world. Instantly and completely. This cannot be "tacked on". This has to be integrated somehow. Current AI doesn't work like that. Instead of building a tower of knowledge it sort of creates abstract cognitive landscapes filled with predetermined averaged out paths that, when followed, give good answers. Useful for a lot of tasks, but it doesn't strike me as the type of structure that can be manipulated with any kind of precision. Maybe that will change and/or I am wrong. Certainly the last one is very probable.