3 ms·
Interesting; your message hints at a sharp gap between using language stochastically (eg being able to repeat what you've heard) vs using language to express de
by omoide 3y ago
Interesting; your message hints at a sharp gap between using language stochastically (eg being able to repeat what you've heard) vs using language to express deeper knowledge/understanding.
A common argument is that LLM by their nature only model the former, not the latter.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoMy point is that LLMs can do both, the same way humans can. We don't learn or recall reversals automatically either - we memorize them separately, or run an inference step (which, done often enough, leads to memorization). Reversals aren't free - not for LLMs, and not for our own minds.
- zarzavat 3y agoYes the difference is that LLMs learn statically: they train and that’s it. Humans dynamically: they revisit learned facts and synthesize new ones. If you force an LLM-like training process in a human, by doing rote memorization without any exercises, then you get LLM-like results in that human. This suggests that you may need to train an LLM on its own output. Goes against the conventional wisdom!
- angusturner 3y agoI think this “wisdom” is not really agreed upon, and in fact I’ve seen a few works successfully leverage synthetic data (including a cool one from Sergey Levine et al recently).