3 ms·
Ah yes, time again for Ximm's Law: every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon. Lemma:
by aaroninsf 3y ago
Ah yes, time again for Ximm's Law: every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.
Lemma: any statement about AI which uses the word "never" to preclude some feature from future realization is false.
Clickbait.
- morsecodist 3y agoThis seems a bit reductionist. It is hard to cut through the hype and counter hype but it can makes sense to reason about the theoretical limits of a technology. For a toy example we have something like the halting problem which was proven undecidable decades ago and this is still true despite computers getting way better. We use theoretical bounds all the time. The term AI is nebulous enough such that new, unrelated, technologies can be invented and called AI but if you are talking about analyzing LLMs specifically you could probably figure out some meaningful theoretical bounds. This appears to be what these researchers are starting to try to do.