2 ms·

I'm not claiming it's about memorization. I have not memorized 9 x 9 + 1 is 82. I can simply do it without invoking any calculation. That is a close equivalent

I'm not claiming it's about memorization. I have not memorized 9 x 9 + 1 is 82. I can simply do it without invoking any calculation. That is a close equivalent to trying to do with math token prediction. Humans doing things "without a pad" is not the same thing as doing mental math vs. trying to intuit an answer. Token predictions will not converge on correct arithmetic algorithms.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>I'm not claiming it's about memorization. I have not memorized 9 x 9 + 1 is 82. I can simply do it without invoking any calculation. >What's 9 times 9? I can tell you it's 81 from sheer memorization. I can probably invoke 9 x 9 + 1 = 82 without needing to do any calculation Performing math how you suggest is little more than memorization except you've just memorized a different chain in the process. >That is a close equivalent to trying to do with math token prediction. This isn't going to become true no matter how much you repeat it. You've consistently made assertions that are trivially proven false. >Token predictions will not converge on correct arithmetic algorithms. Yes it will. It literally will. This isn't some debate. This is something that has been researched. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/N6WM6hs7RQMKDhYjB/a-mechanistic-interpretability-analysis-of-grokking https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/N6WM6hs7RQMKDhYjB/a-mec... You think you have an understanding of Language Models and token prediction. Unfortunately you don't.
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  > Performing math how you suggest is little more than memorization except you've just memorized a different chain in the process. It's synthesis of memory perhaps, but it's not memorizing specific answers; which is different yet from executing steps of an algorithm you have memorized. > This isn't going to become true no matter how much you repeat it. You've consistently made assertions that are trivially proven false. Then agree to disagree because I think you're full of shit. actually, not even that, I think you just don't even understand what I'm saying. which is agreeing with you 90% of the way. This article is nice. But Memorization -> Generalization -> Cleaning up Noise -> Stability is STILL NOT THE ALGORITHM. It will never be the algorithm. It's always just "generalization-ish". Which is again, a modality that human brains can use to process problems and works pretty well, and can presumably work very well, but is ultimately inferior to established, perfected algorithms. but nah. you chose petty arrogance so yay, we get get to be dicks. fuck off.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

famouswaffles 3y ago

>I'm not claiming it's about memorization. I have not memorized 9 x 9 + 1 is 82. I can simply do it without invoking any calculation. >What's 9 times 9? I can tell you it's 81 from sheer memorization. I can probably invoke 9 x 9 + 1 = 82 without needing to do any calculation Performing math how you suggest is little more than memorization except you've just memorized a different chain in the process. >That is a close equivalent to trying to do with math token prediction. This isn't going to become true no matter how much you repeat it. You've consistently made assertions that are trivially proven false. >Token predictions will not converge on correct arithmetic algorithms. Yes it will. It literally will. This isn't some debate. This is something that has been researched. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/N6WM6hs7RQMKDhYjB/a-mechanistic-interpretability-analysis-of-grokking https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/N6WM6hs7RQMKDhYjB/a-mec... You think you have an understanding of Language Models and token prediction. Unfortunately you don't.

spywaregorilla 3y ago
> Performing math how you suggest is little more than memorization except you've just memorized a different chain in the process. It's synthesis of memory perhaps, but it's not memorizing specific answers; which is different yet from executing steps of an algorithm you have memorized. > This isn't going to become true no matter how much you repeat it. You've consistently made assertions that are trivially proven false. Then agree to disagree because I think you're full of shit. actually, not even that, I think you just don't even understand what I'm saying. which is agreeing with you 90% of the way. This article is nice. But Memorization -> Generalization -> Cleaning up Noise -> Stability is STILL NOT THE ALGORITHM. It will never be the algorithm. It's always just "generalization-ish". Which is again, a modality that human brains can use to process problems and works pretty well, and can presumably work very well, but is ultimately inferior to established, perfected algorithms. but nah. you chose petty arrogance so yay, we get get to be dicks. fuck off.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]