2 ms·
Looking at the quoted tweet it is immediately obvious that these people have no clue about the current state of research. Yes they might have had some more or l
by sigmoid10 1y ago
Looking at the quoted tweet it is immediately obvious that these people have no clue about the current state of research. Yes they might have had some more or less relevant contributions to classical ML, but AI has taken off without (or rather despite) them and if history of AI has shown anything, it's that people like those are not the ones who will pave the way forward. In a field like this, there's no use to listen to people who still cling to their old ideas just because the current ideas don't seem "elegant" or "right" in their mind. The only thing you can trust is data and it proves we haven't peaked yet when it comes to LLMs.
- signa11 1y agosez $random-person on the interweebs. more seriously though, as best as i can understand, what he is trying to say is that there must be a *LOGICAL* framework independent of compute or what you get is just a parrot (stochastic one at best) that operates within the smoothed edges of a distributed statistical field.