3 ms·

This is bordering conspiracy theory. Thousands of people are getting novel breakthroughs generated purely by LLM an not a single person discloses such result? N

by Yizahi 1y ago

This is bordering conspiracy theory. Thousands of people are getting novel breakthroughs generated purely by LLM an not a single person discloses such result? Not even one of the countless LLM corporation engineers who depend on the billion dollar IV injections from deluded bankers just to continue surviving, and not one has bragged about LLM doing that revolution? Hard to believe.

esafak 1y ago
Countless people are increasing their productivity and talking about it here ad nauseam. Even researchers are leaning on language models; e.g., https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114139125505827565 https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114139125505827565 We haven't successfully resolved famous unsolved research problems through language models yet but one can imagine that they will solve increasingly challenging problems over time. And if it happens in the hands of a researcher rather than model's lab, one can also imagine that the researcher will take credit, so you will still have the same question.
- AIPedant 1y ago
  The actual posts totally undermine your point: My general sense is that for research-level mathematical tasks at least, current models fluctuate between "genuinely useful with only broad guidance from user" and "only useful after substantial detailed user guidance", with the most powerful models having a greater proportion of answers in the former category. They seem to work particularly well for questions that are so standard that their answers can basically be found in existing sources such as Wikipedia or StackOverflow; but as one moves into increasingly obscure types of questions, the success rate tapers off (though in a somewhat gradual fashion), and the more user guidance (or higher compute resources) one needs to get the LLM output to a usable form. (2/2)
- Yizahi 1y ago
  Increasing productivity is nice and commendable, but it is NOT an LLM making a breakthrough on its own, which is the topic of the Gwern's article.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  There is a LOT of money on this message board trying to convince us of the utility of these machines and yes, people talk about it ad nauseum, in vague terms that are unlike anything I see in the real world, with few examples. Show me the code. Show me your finished product.
BizarroLand 1y ago
I wonder if it's not the LLM making the breakthrough but rather that the person using the system just needed the information available presented in a clear and orderly fashion to make the breakthrough itself. After all, the LLM currently has no cognizance, it is unable to understand what it is saying in a meaningful way. At its best it is a P-Noid Zombie machine, right? In my opinion anything amazing that comes from an LLM only becomes amazing when someone who was capable of recognizing the amazingness perceives it, like a rewrite of a zen koan, "If an LLM generates a new work of William Shakespeare, and nobody ever reads it, was anything of value lost?"

by Yizahi 1y ago

esafak 1y ago

Countless people are increasing their productivity and talking about it here ad nauseam. Even researchers are leaning on language models; e.g., https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114139125505827565 https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114139125505827565 We haven't successfully resolved famous unsolved research problems through language models yet but one can imagine that they will solve increasingly challenging problems over time. And if it happens in the hands of a researcher rather than model's lab, one can also imagine that the researcher will take credit, so you will still have the same question.

AIPedant 1y ago
The actual posts totally undermine your point: My general sense is that for research-level mathematical tasks at least, current models fluctuate between "genuinely useful with only broad guidance from user" and "only useful after substantial detailed user guidance", with the most powerful models having a greater proportion of answers in the former category. They seem to work particularly well for questions that are so standard that their answers can basically be found in existing sources such as Wikipedia or StackOverflow; but as one moves into increasingly obscure types of questions, the success rate tapers off (though in a somewhat gradual fashion), and the more user guidance (or higher compute resources) one needs to get the LLM output to a usable form. (2/2)
Yizahi 1y ago
Increasing productivity is nice and commendable, but it is NOT an LLM making a breakthrough on its own, which is the topic of the Gwern's article.
dingnuts 1y ago
There is a LOT of money on this message board trying to convince us of the utility of these machines and yes, people talk about it ad nauseum, in vague terms that are unlike anything I see in the real world, with few examples. Show me the code. Show me your finished product.

BizarroLand 1y ago

I wonder if it's not the LLM making the breakthrough but rather that the person using the system just needed the information available presented in a clear and orderly fashion to make the breakthrough itself. After all, the LLM currently has no cognizance, it is unable to understand what it is saying in a meaningful way. At its best it is a P-Noid Zombie machine, right? In my opinion anything amazing that comes from an LLM only becomes amazing when someone who was capable of recognizing the amazingness perceives it, like a rewrite of a zen koan, "If an LLM generates a new work of William Shakespeare, and nobody ever reads it, was anything of value lost?"