6 ms·
Ah, so you misread. I said conversational intelligence machines, but you focused on LLMs. I don't know where LLMs will lead, but I haven't ruled out the possi
by CMay 1y ago
Ah, so you misread. I said conversational intelligence machines, but you focused on LLMs.
I don't know where LLMs will lead, but I haven't ruled out the possibility of improvements continuing to surprise us. If anything is unscientific, it would be overconfidence in one way or the other.
- hammyhavoc 1y agoConfidence comes from statistics. The statistics say that smaller models are better than bigger ones, ergo I have I have confidence in saying what I did. If anyone is overconfident, I'm afraid it is you.
- CMay 1y agoEven if smaller more specialized models outperform larger more generalized models for specific tasks with these architectures, that does not logically support your point or serve as meaningful evidence against my post. These systems can have many models and the systems themselves could eventually arrive at knowledge they know they underperform on, automatically training new models for that subject. The final response wouldn't necessarily come exclusively from the specialized model, it might come through a model specialized at integrating knowledge between multiple models, asking the right questions, verifying and so on. We're barely a few years into this, so it's premature to know what 100 years of developments will bring.