2 ms·
That's true, but the model still analyzed all that disparate information and produced a very detailed graph of the relevant relationships. If anyone can show th
by munchler 3y ago
That's true, but the model still analyzed all that disparate information and produced a very detailed graph of the relevant relationships. If anyone can show that the graph itself was in the training data, then I would agree that it's not a good test.
- vsnf 3y agoIf eat my hat if multiple graphs almost exactly like this one weren’t in the training days. This is like fandoms 101.
- lukan 3y agoThe frustrating thing about all this speculations is, that we don't know what was in the training data, but I think we should know that, to have any meaningful discussion about it.
- actionfromafar 3y agoWe should. However in this case, isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume they didn't put just about everything in the training data?
- chmod775 3y ago> disparate information I wouldn't call it disparate when there's about a dozen wikis each spelling it out like this: https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Severus_Snape https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Severus_Snape
- joshspankit 3y agoIt would have been fairly trivial to AB test this where the other side is to ask the same question but without all the books in-window.