4 ms·

The “20 years away” meme is stupid. There really are technologies that are possible but incredibly hard and require decades of sustained effort. Cracking natur

by api 2y ago

The “20 years away” meme is stupid. There really are technologies that are possible but incredibly hard and require decades of sustained effort. Cracking natural language comprehension with digital computers is an example from our field and it’s here.

anonzzzies 2y ago
>Cracking natural language comprehension with digital computers is an example from our field and it’s here. Exactly, there are experts in the field less than a decade a way who said 50+ years easily. And there we are.
palata 2y ago
I would debate the fact that LLMs have "cracked natural language comprehension"... Not that it's not impressive, but LLMs do not "comprehend", for a start.
- frenchwhisker 2y ago
  I see what you’re getting at but it does feel like goalposts are being moved, no? By and large we can ask a computer today a question and it will almost certainly spit back a sensible (!= correct) answer. We can ask what the words mean and ask it to translate it to other languages, and we can have a conversation.
  - palata 2y ago
    > I see what you’re getting at but it does feel like goalposts are being moved, no? I don't think so. I am not setting the "goalpost" here, it was expressed as "LLMs have cracked natural language comprehension". I just don't think they have. There are tons of statements I would agree with regarding what LLMs have achieved, but this one is not part of them :-).
    - frenchwhisker 2y ago
      Fair enough! Out of curiosity, in your words, what have LLMs achieved?
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      What is the metric to measure comprehension? How are we disentangling comprehension of natural language itself from comprehension of the subject matter being discussed via said language sample? I think that by most reasonable metrics LLMs can reasonably be said to comprehend natural language itself. However they clearly are deficient in logic and reasoning, as well as comprehension of many of the concepts that the natural language is used to express.
- riskable 2y ago
  Even more impressive would be when humans can actually comprehend LLMs!
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  what's your definition of "comprehend"?
slightwinder 2y ago
> The “20 years away” meme is stupid. No, it's not. It's just a legit illustration of somethings state of development on fundamental levels. It simply means "we have no f**ing clue how we can do this, but future..". This is different from something we have already solved, and you just need to throw money on it to scale it to whichever level you need it. > Cracking natural language comprehension with digital computers is an example from our field and it’s here. That's the point, everything in research is always x0 years away, until the breakthrough happens and it's finished.
- api 2y ago
  > This is different from something we have already solved, and you just need to throw money on it to scale it to whichever level you need it. We can already do fusion, and by every metric it is scaling. Triple product is increasing, etc. Fusion does not become a viable source of energy until it scales beyond a certain point, but there is no "leap" between here and there that we know about, just better and better containment. We are descending a gradient, not looking for one. If we had never managed to get fusion outside, say, hydrogen bombs, then I'd agree that we have no idea how to do it, but we have -- using many methods. Tokamaks seem to be the best one for scaling it so far, but there's other possibilities that I wish we would research more.
  - slightwinder 2y ago
    That's not really how it works. We do know SOME ways to reach fusion, but they are not on the level we need. We haven't mastered fusion yet, we still need to research the foundations. We don't even know if scaling is all we need, and we don't know how to scale it to the level we seek. Technology usually has a range of performance, what it can do and what not. And our technology for fusion-process is not in the range for a commercial reactor, so we still need a breakthrough in our understanding.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2y ago

by api 2y ago

anonzzzies 2y ago

>Cracking natural language comprehension with digital computers is an example from our field and it’s here. Exactly, there are experts in the field less than a decade a way who said 50+ years easily. And there we are.

palata 2y ago

I would debate the fact that LLMs have "cracked natural language comprehension"... Not that it's not impressive, but LLMs do not "comprehend", for a start.

frenchwhisker 2y ago
I see what you’re getting at but it does feel like goalposts are being moved, no? By and large we can ask a computer today a question and it will almost certainly spit back a sensible (!= correct) answer. We can ask what the words mean and ask it to translate it to other languages, and we can have a conversation.
- palata 2y ago
  > I see what you’re getting at but it does feel like goalposts are being moved, no? I don't think so. I am not setting the "goalpost" here, it was expressed as "LLMs have cracked natural language comprehension". I just don't think they have. There are tons of statements I would agree with regarding what LLMs have achieved, but this one is not part of them :-).
  - frenchwhisker 2y ago
    Fair enough! Out of curiosity, in your words, what have LLMs achieved?
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    What is the metric to measure comprehension? How are we disentangling comprehension of natural language itself from comprehension of the subject matter being discussed via said language sample? I think that by most reasonable metrics LLMs can reasonably be said to comprehend natural language itself. However they clearly are deficient in logic and reasoning, as well as comprehension of many of the concepts that the natural language is used to express.
riskable 2y ago
Even more impressive would be when humans can actually comprehend LLMs!
throwawaymaths 2y ago
what's your definition of "comprehend"?

slightwinder 2y ago

> The “20 years away” meme is stupid. No, it's not. It's just a legit illustration of somethings state of development on fundamental levels. It simply means "we have no f**ing clue how we can do this, but future..". This is different from something we have already solved, and you just need to throw money on it to scale it to whichever level you need it. > Cracking natural language comprehension with digital computers is an example from our field and it’s here. That's the point, everything in research is always x0 years away, until the breakthrough happens and it's finished.

api 2y ago
> This is different from something we have already solved, and you just need to throw money on it to scale it to whichever level you need it. We can already do fusion, and by every metric it is scaling. Triple product is increasing, etc. Fusion does not become a viable source of energy until it scales beyond a certain point, but there is no "leap" between here and there that we know about, just better and better containment. We are descending a gradient, not looking for one. If we had never managed to get fusion outside, say, hydrogen bombs, then I'd agree that we have no idea how to do it, but we have -- using many methods. Tokamaks seem to be the best one for scaling it so far, but there's other possibilities that I wish we would research more.
- slightwinder 2y ago
  That's not really how it works. We do know SOME ways to reach fusion, but they are not on the level we need. We haven't mastered fusion yet, we still need to research the foundations. We don't even know if scaling is all we need, and we don't know how to scale it to the level we seek. Technology usually has a range of performance, what it can do and what not. And our technology for fusion-process is not in the range for a commercial reactor, so we still need a breakthrough in our understanding.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2y ago