3 ms·
Right. This seems to be the latest in the “throw random stuff at the wall and see what sticks” series of generative ai papers. I don’t know if I’m too stupid t
by ipython 2y ago
Right. This seems to be the latest in the “throw random stuff at the wall and see what sticks” series of generative ai papers.
I don’t know if I’m too stupid to understand or if truly this is just “add random stuff to prompt” dressed up in flowery academic language.
- pxmpxm 2y agoNot surprising - from what I can tell, machine learning has been going down this route for a decade. Anything involving the higher level abstractions (tensor flow / keras /whatever) is full of handwavy stuff about this or that activation function / number of layers / model architecture working the best and doing a trial error with a different component in the above if it doesn't. Closer to kids playing with legos than statistics.
- malwrar 2y agoI’ve actually noticed this in other areas too. Tons of them just swap parts out of existing works, maybe add a novel idea or two, then boom new proposed technique new paper. I remember when I first noticed it after learning to parse the academic nomenclature for a particular subject I was into at the time (SLAM) and feeling ripped off, but hey if you catch up with a subject it’s a good reading shortcut and helps zoom in on new ideas.