2 ms·
Do you honestly think no AI advancement will fix those limitations? That LLM's or their successors will just never reach human level no matter how much compute
by atleastoptimal 3y ago
Do you honestly think no AI advancement will fix those limitations? That LLM's or their successors will just never reach human level no matter how much compute or data are thrown at them?
- fzeroracer 3y agoNo, we won't. Not in either of our lifetimes. There are problems with infinitely smaller problem spaces that we cannot solve because of the sheer difficulty of the problem. LLMs are the equivalent of a brute force attempt at cracking language models. Language is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole body of work devoted to AI.
- atleastoptimal 3y agoOk. Check back on this thread in 3 years then.
- fzeroracer 3y agoDone, see you in three years.
- emmelaich 3y agoYou should really make a bet on longbets.org if you're serious.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThat's what they used to say about Go before DeepMind took Lee Se-dol for a ride. Not bad for a parrot. As for language, LLMs showed that we didn't really understand what language was. Don't sell language short as a concept. It does more than we think.
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago>> Do you honestly think no AI advancement will fix those limitations? That LLM's or their successors will just never reach human level no matter how much compute or data are thrown at them? It has not happened yet. If it does, how trustworthy would it be? What would it be used for? HAL-9000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000) is science fiction, but the lesson / warning is still true.