3 ms·
That's intriguing. But what I want to see is if that one example can change the whole web of knowledge previously established. So, for example, if we finetune t
by rafaelero 3y ago
That's intriguing. But what I want to see is if that one example can change the whole web of knowledge previously established. So, for example, if we finetune the model with a sentence like "Scientists discovered that a type of antigen can make a host immune to HIV" will it then be able to infer that "mRNA vaccines are a valid preventive approach to AIDS since they may be able to express a type of resistance known to make hosts immune to HIV"?
- Filligree 3y agoThat would be impressive and surprising. Humans aren’t capable of that.
- rafaelero 3y ago> Humans aren’t capable of that. Why do you say so? We casually call it "connecting the dots". It's like during the Oppenheimer movie when after the first demonstration of Uranium splitting people thought "oh, we can do a bomb with that".
- Filligree 3y agoWe need to pull up both elements simultaneously and correlate them, it doesn't happen automatically because we learned that "a type of antigen can make a host immune to HIV". Yes, ideally the former will associate well enough with the latter that, once you find some reason to think about mRNA, it will automatically drag up the thing you learned earlier and then you'll update. But it doesn't happen by itself, and sometimes it doesn't happen at all. Most people contain significant inconsistencies -- I would dare to suggest most likely everyone.