3 ms·
If a child learned to read at 2 and spent every waking moment reading until 10 it would still be orders of magnitude less than what we use to train even smaller
by api 3y ago
If a child learned to read at 2 and spent every waking moment reading until 10 it would still be orders of magnitude less than what we use to train even smaller base models (e.g. Mistral-7b).
My 10 year old daughter doesn’t read as much as she should (too much gaming) but gets 100% on science and history tests and definitely would outperform GPT-4 on reasoning. She’d have no problem telling me how many sisters Sally has. :) A human brain consumes 20-40 watts too, not hundreds.
I bet total power consumption for a human brain age 0-10 is substantially less than what it takes to train a medium sized base model. That’d be an interesting bit of math to add.
GPT-4 will win on breadth of knowledge but that’s just because it’s a lossy compression blob containing a dump of the Internet. We are talking about intelligence (GI) here not just being a big dumb know it all.
- fragmede 3y agoThat theoretical child isn't just reading words though. it's experiencing life in a human body, with a human brain, and getting full force of all their senses and biology of being human. We don't have a good measure for how much data that is, even if the majority of that is being thrown away. This theoretical child reading from 2-10 is reading fewer words, sure, but are they being exposed to far less data? The fonts being used, the smell of the books, how the spine cracks. LLMs don't get that in their datasets, just tokens, which isn't even the letters that make up a word.