4 ms·

> No, they are an incredible breakthrough, because extending them with things like internal thoughts will so obviously lead to results such as o3, and far beyon

> No, they are an incredible breakthrough, because extending them with things like internal thoughts will so obviously lead to results such as o3, and far beyond. While I agree that the LLM progress as of late is interesting, the rest of your sentiment sounds more like you are in a cult. As long as your field keep coming with less and less realistic predictions and fail to deliver over and over, eventually even the most gullible will lose faith in you. Because that's what this all is right now. Faith. > Maybe a few more people will start to understand the trajectory we're on. All you are saying is that you believe something will happen in the future. We can't have a intelligent discussion under those premises. It's depressing to see so many otherwise smart people fall for their own hype train. You are only helping rich people get more rich by spreading their lies.

versteegen 2y ago
I know I'm at fault for emotively complaining about "uninformed takes" in my comment instead of being substantive, which I regret, and I deserve replies such as this. I'll try harder to avoid getting into these arguments next time. I wouldn't be an AI researcher if I didn't have "faith" that AI as a goal is worthwhile and achievable and I can make progress. You think this is irrational? I am actually working to improve the SoTA in mathematical reasoning. I have documents full of concrete ideas for how to do that. So does everyone else in AI, in their niche. We are in an era of low hanging fruit enabled by ML breakthroughs such as large-scale transformers. I'm not someone who thinks you can simply keep scaling up transformers to solve AI. But consider System 1 and System 2 thinking: System 1 sure looks solved right now. > As long as your field keep coming with less and less realistic predictions and fail to deliver over and over I don't think we're commenting on the same article here. For example, FrontierMath was expected to be near impossible for LLMs for years, now here we are 5 weeks later at 25%.

versteegen 2y ago

I know I'm at fault for emotively complaining about "uninformed takes" in my comment instead of being substantive, which I regret, and I deserve replies such as this. I'll try harder to avoid getting into these arguments next time. I wouldn't be an AI researcher if I didn't have "faith" that AI as a goal is worthwhile and achievable and I can make progress. You think this is irrational? I am actually working to improve the SoTA in mathematical reasoning. I have documents full of concrete ideas for how to do that. So does everyone else in AI, in their niche. We are in an era of low hanging fruit enabled by ML breakthroughs such as large-scale transformers. I'm not someone who thinks you can simply keep scaling up transformers to solve AI. But consider System 1 and System 2 thinking: System 1 sure looks solved right now. > As long as your field keep coming with less and less realistic predictions and fail to deliver over and over I don't think we're commenting on the same article here. For example, FrontierMath was expected to be near impossible for LLMs for years, now here we are 5 weeks later at 25%.