3 ms·
This is a logical fallacy itself, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're making the argument for infinite capabilities with LLMs. This is almost
by roflyear 3y ago
This is a logical fallacy itself, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're making the argument for infinite capabilities with LLMs. This is almost certainly not true.
- famouswaffles 3y agoI'm not making the argument for infinite capabilities. The main point is that the idea that you can determine this stop from looking at current iterations is a fallacy. It's no more evidence than random chance. The second point is to understand that any task, any task at all even if it's not necessarily the most efficient or performant way can be expressed as a prediction task and sit along for the ride. If your model of the world is good enough, there's nothing occurring in the world you can't predict. Prediction itself is not the weak point here.
- roflyear 3y agoI understand your perspective that with a sufficiently accurate model of the world, anything can be predicted. But I disagree, while framing all tasks as prediction problems is an interesting perspective (I haven't heard this explicitly stated before), there are inherent uncertainties/data gaps/etc.. in some systems that might pose challenges even to the most advanced predictors. I think your argument relies on there being perfect data - which doesn't exist, and will never exist. It's not solely about the predictor's strength but also about the intrinsic predictability of certain phenomena.