4 ms·
> You are the first to suggest any such thing, in this comment chain. I'm sorry, did you miss the original post: "Because they are at a child level of developm
by Alchemista 3y ago
> You are the first to suggest any such thing, in this comment chain.
I'm sorry, did you miss the original post: "Because they are at a child level of development. Give it a few years."
I extrapolated a little bit, but not much. They were clearly implying that it is on a similar developmental path as a child.
- nomel 3y agoIt's not clear to me, since they used "at a" not "on a", as you've reworded it. > Because they are at a child level of development. I read this as, "Because the capabilities of LLM are at the child level of development."
- Alchemista 3y agoI feel like you are being deliberately obtuse here. They said "Give it a few years" and linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages. How is this not strongly implying that in a "few years" LLMs will be at a later "level of development" as described in the article they linked.
- nomel 3y agoI think you're not being charitable in the interpretation. It, almost certainly, will be in later stages of emulating human cognition. If not, then AI winter is already here. It's trivial and legitimate to relate capabilities of AI to those in that table. Because, again, emulating human cognition is the stated goal of most AI research happening right now. An AI's capabilities, progressing in that table, does not mean it's human. It means the stated objectives, and all the hard work, and money spent, is on track. It's not a goal to match that table. It's not a goal to end in a human. But, more and more of the table will turn green, as the goal is completed. I'm not understanding the hesitance of using a human metric for a product whose goal is to match human metrics.
- nomel 3y ago> An AI's capabilities Meant this as a product (e.g. ChatGPT).