3 ms·
> that the initial world model is flawed is the known starting point: at the beginning, it only knows it has "heard" a lot of information. If it has no concret
by talldayo 2y ago
> that the initial world model is flawed is the known starting point: at the beginning, it only knows it has "heard" a lot of information.
If it has no concrete reasoning, how is this looped revision intended to be more-accurate than a zero-shot guess?
I agree with the fundamental principle of not trusting input data from the start, but that just puts us back in square-one where we generate non-authoritative results dependent on a series of autoregressive parameters. It might generate better-reasoned results, but the outcome will be equally unreliable and prone to hallucination.
- mdp2021 2y ago> If it has no concrete reasoning, how is this looped revision intended to be more-accurate It can work if the reasoning (the logic) is part of the world model and is similarly refined. Then, like in the normal case, you gather a good amount of information than draw your conclusions based on you logic and the "wisdom" built. Were this automated, you would have an automated champion in judgement - doing its best with the imperfect data and function available. Like us, just better.