2 ms·
> implying an upper bound on any dependent phenomenon the implication sounds good, but is easily rejected with a counter example: a good student can surpass hi
by hnben 3y ago
> implying an upper bound on any dependent phenomenon
the implication sounds good, but is easily rejected with a counter example: a good student can surpass his master. A mediorcre student with multiple masters can surpass all of them (tangent: this is why the medival master-journeyman system was so efficient, I think).
Or to make the argument more abstract: Your implication seems to assume, that transferlearning does not exist.
- inopinatus 3y agoLLMs do not study. I’ll repeat an assertion I’ve made in this forum before: that the benchmark for AGI will be when two AIs play one another at an incomprehensible game of their own devising. However, there is a hidden corollary in my earlier statement. By implying an upper bound on the correctness of their answers, we can assess that LLMs will not themselves achieve sentience and form a civilisational threat. That actually increases their potential utility in many applications. Much as you wouldn’t, for safety’s sake, put a jet engine in a conventional car (occasional mad-scientist projects notwithstanding).