6 ms·

That's not computer science, that's ML, formally a branch of statistics. Computer science techniques have been successful in implementing and optimizing the pe

by uoaei 3y ago

That's not computer science, that's ML, formally a branch of statistics. Computer science techniques have been successful in implementing and optimizing the performance of LLMs but CS itself has absolutely nothing to do with the theoretical underpinnings of *why* they work.

theGnuMe 3y ago
So in your opinion There is no CS only math.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Of course not. Don't put words in my mouth. Computer science concerns itself with computable things, which is a subset and except in very special cases only an approximation of the set of things that math concerns itself with. Making abstract theoretical constructs like ML models and algorithms computable (and representable, and efficient) is where the two intersect, but it's wise for proper understanding not to conflate iterative processes with computation per se, or perhaps more pithily, to confuse the map with the territory.
fourier456 3y ago
This comment seems misguided. I am a grad student working with LLMs in a CS department. I promise you CS has (and will have) much to say about theoretical underpinnings of transformers.
- uoaei 3y ago
  I can't see what you might be referring to. Even topics around quantization are fundamentally about information theory and not really computer science per se. It could just as easily be an explanation that your CS department is better-funded and more interested in tackling those problems -- statistics departments tend to be a bit behind the curve in this regard, but that doesn't magically move an entire branch of science somewhere else in the taxonomy. Maybe if you can explain what you mean instead of merely providing some vague assertion, we could have a real conversation about it. In my experience, though, the hype train around software engineering has incited CS departments to retcon a lot of things as CS-related so that their grant writers have an easier time securing funding.

by uoaei 3y ago

theGnuMe 3y ago

So in your opinion There is no CS only math.

uoaei 3y ago
Of course not. Don't put words in my mouth. Computer science concerns itself with computable things, which is a subset and except in very special cases only an approximation of the set of things that math concerns itself with. Making abstract theoretical constructs like ML models and algorithms computable (and representable, and efficient) is where the two intersect, but it's wise for proper understanding not to conflate iterative processes with computation per se, or perhaps more pithily, to confuse the map with the territory.

fourier456 3y ago

This comment seems misguided. I am a grad student working with LLMs in a CS department. I promise you CS has (and will have) much to say about theoretical underpinnings of transformers.

uoaei 3y ago
I can't see what you might be referring to. Even topics around quantization are fundamentally about information theory and not really computer science per se. It could just as easily be an explanation that your CS department is better-funded and more interested in tackling those problems -- statistics departments tend to be a bit behind the curve in this regard, but that doesn't magically move an entire branch of science somewhere else in the taxonomy. Maybe if you can explain what you mean instead of merely providing some vague assertion, we could have a real conversation about it. In my experience, though, the hype train around software engineering has incited CS departments to retcon a lot of things as CS-related so that their grant writers have an easier time securing funding.