3 ms·
“Models trained on human data can’t outperform the base error rate in that data.” That doesn’t seem inherently/unavoidably true. Surely a human could read a bu
by sokoloff 2y ago
“Models trained on human data can’t outperform the base error rate in that data.”
That doesn’t seem inherently/unavoidably true. Surely a human could read a bunch of SO answers, try them, and thereby outperform the base error rate of the answers.
I don’t see it as impossible for an AI model to exist that does the same.
- ToucanLoucan 2y agoBecause a human can comprehend, and an LLM cannot.
- jqpabc123 2y agoI don’t see it as impossible for an AI model to exist that does the same. The important step is creating an AI model with enough cognition to recognize it needs to do the same before spouting nonsense.
- nanolith 2y agoSuch a model has not yet been invented. Certainly, a generative model such as a large language model is unlikely to gain the ability to reason about these answers. LLMs are a step on the path toward better human/computer interaction, but they are just a step. Like most new things in the AI field, they have been over-hyped and have moved the market in a giant game of tech FOMO.
- jqpabc123 2y agoa giant game of tech FOMO. For me, the most distressing part is how easily tech people drink the FOMO and then go to work promoting it. This happens over and over again.