5 ms·
> at a similar level to a person learning from the same content. That's an incredibly low bar
by poulpy123 3y ago
> at a similar level to a person learning from the same content.
That's an incredibly low bar
- ithkuil 3y agoIt's incredible how fast goalposts are moving. The same feat one year ago would have been almost unbelievable.
- KeplerBoy 3y agoSince when are we expecting super-human capabilities?
- andsoitis 3y agoAnd in fact it already is super human. Show me a single human who can translate amongst 10+ languages across specialized domains in the blink of an eye.
- empath-nirvana 3y agoChat GPT has been super human in a lot of tasks even since 3.5. People point out mistakes it makes that no human would make, but that doesn't negate the super-human performance it has at other tasks -- and the _breadth_ of what it can do is far beyond any single person.
- KeplerBoy 3y agoWhere exactly does it have super-human performance? Above average and expert-level? Sure, I'd agree, but I haven't experienced anything above that.
- newzisforsukas 3y agoindeed, or a human who can analyze a hundred page text document in less than a minute and provide answers in less than a second. the issue remains on accuracy. i think a human in that scenario is still more accurate with their responses, and i do not yet see that being overcome in this multi-year llm battle.
- coffeebeqn 3y agoThe model does already have superhuman ability by knowing hundreds of languages
- elevatedastalt 3y ago:muffled sounds of goalposts being shifted in the distance: Just a few years ago we used to clap if an NLP model could handle negation reliably or could generate even a paragraph of text in English that was natural sounding. Now we are at a stage where it is basically producing reams of natural sounding text, performing surprisingly well on reasoning problems and translation of languages with barely any data despite being a markov chain on steroids, and what does it hear? "That's an incredibly low bar".
- glenstein 3y agoI'm going to keep beating this dead horse, but if you were a philosophy nerd in the 80s, 90s, 00s etc you may know that debates RAGED over whether computers could ever, even in principle do things that are now being accomplished on a weekly basis. And as you say, the goalposts keep getting moved. It used to be claimed that computers could never play chess at the highest levels because that required "insight". And whatever a computer could do, it could never to that extra special thing, that could only be described in magical undefined terms. I just hope there's a moment of reckoning for decades upon decades of arguments, deemed academically respectable, that insisted that days like these would never come.
- elevatedastalt 3y agoHonestly. I am ok with having greater and greater goals to accomplish but this sort of dismissive attitude really puts me off.
- empath-nirvana 3y agoForget goalpost shifting, people frequently refuse to admit that it can do things that it obviously does, because they've never used it themselves.
- mewpmewp2 3y agoListen, you little ...
- zacmps 3y ago> The author (the human learner) has some formal experience in linguistics and has studied a variety of languages both formally and informally, though no Austronesian or Papuan languages From the language benchmark (parentheses mine).
- JyB 3y agoJarring you're not adding more context to your comment.
- newzisforsukas 3y agoyou are insane if you actually think this.
- lukemelas 3y agoAuthor here (of the Kalamang paper). One of my coauthors was the human baseline and he spent many months reading the grammar book (and is incredibly talented at learning languages). It’s really a very high bar.