3 ms·
> On the other hand I have started using llama 3.3 and it is approaching usefulnes cute phrasing! so what you're saying is that you're using it, but it's not u
by dingnuts 2y ago
> On the other hand I have started using llama 3.3 and it is approaching usefulnes
cute phrasing! so what you're saying is that you're using it, but it's not useful. You can imagine it being useful, and it produces output similar to useful output, but it isn't useful.
That perfectly matches my experience with language models, going back to when I was running GPT2 locally.
Has there been any evidence that the improvement is not asymptotic? For ten years language models have been approaching usefulness.
When do we get to usefulness?
- Philpax 2y agoThat's not what they said, and you're being purposely obtuse. They were saying that Llama 3.3, an open model, approaches usefulness, in comparison to o1, a closed model, which is already useful to them. As for usefulness in general, it's already here. It's not perfect, it can make mistakes, but saying they're not useful at all - especially for software engineers - is foolish. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42602940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42602940.
- zitterbewegung 2y agoI think LLAMA 4 will get to usefulness ( I think I should say I have evaluated it). Long term training seems to be the best solution to solve the issues I have been facing and also more polish using CoT with reinforcement learning. I don't want to be paying for o1 since I have a homelab that could easily use up to 70B for LLAMA 3.3 or more if I can figure out how to run larger versions of LLAMA but llama can parallelize it to use all of my GPUs and inference would be faster so I would settle for that.