5 ms·
That, as I understand it, is not a valid chain of logic. Requiring fewer data points does not inherently indicate that the underlying mechanism (autogressive se
by solidasparagus 2y ago
That, as I understand it, is not a valid chain of logic. Requiring fewer data points does not inherently indicate that the underlying mechanism (autogressive sequential generation, not the transformer which is just an architecture) is different.
Not to mention the secondary arguments like - no proof that human learns faster from fewer datapoints, that's just your assumption in the sibling comment. Humans inherit information. The equivalent - fine-tuning a foundation model - is very fast to learn novel objects.
Just because someone has a Turing award doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. They are just people, with strengths and weaknesses like everyone else. But often on the extreme end of strengths and weaknesses.
- retros3x 2y agoWell, the same thing goes for you - just because someone posts on HN doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. And if I have to decide whose assessment I trust regarding AI, I take the Turing award winner who worked for almost 40 years on AI over a random guy from the internet.
- solidasparagus 2y agoSure. But I'm not standing here saying my argument is valid because SolidAsparagus made it. > And if I have to decide whose assessment I trust regarding AI, I take the Turing award winner who worked for almost 40 years on AI over a random guy from the internet. I'd encourage you to do your own thinking and make up your own mind.