3 ms·

In response to your direct question -> https://gail.wharton.upenn.edu/research-and-insights/tech-report-chain-of-thought/ https://gail.wharton.upenn.edu/researc

In response to your direct question -> https://gail.wharton.upenn.edu/research-and-insights/tech-report-chain-of-thought/ https://gail.wharton.upenn.edu/research-and-insights/tech-re... “ This indicates that while CoT can improve performance on difficult questions, it can also introduce variability that causes errors on “easy” questions the model would otherwise answer correctly.” Other response to strawberry example; There are 25,000 people employed globally that repair broken responses and create training data, a big whack-a-mole effort to remediate embarrassing errors.

CamperBob2 9mo ago
(Shrug) Ancient models are ancient. Please provide specific examples that back up your point, not obsolete .PDFs to comb through.
- lazarus01 9mo ago
  Your ideas are quite weak and you ask for overwhelming proof, but not willing to read any research. That’s just intellectually lazy. Perhaps if you took some time to learn from the experts, those who create these systems and really understand what’s happening you would realize these limitations in AI are widely known. Take a look around the 5 minute mark. https://youtu.be/PqVbypvxDto?si=gZq-2yEuE4sTeQZe https://youtu.be/PqVbypvxDto?si=gZq-2yEuE4sTeQZe Just understand you are dead wrong in your assumptions.
  - CamperBob2 9mo ago
    You appear to be arguing with someone who isn't here (or else you replied to the wrong post.) Your personal fallacy of choice appears to be, "LLMs aren't godlike and infallible only a few years after being invented, despite absolutely no one ever claiming they were, so it's all a bunch of empty hype." No one cares about the state of the art. Only the first couple of time derivatives matters. You're not getting smarter, but the models are. How are those examples coming along, by the way? The ones that prove that IMO-level models aren't reasoning, but just getting really, really lucky?

CamperBob2 9mo ago

(Shrug) Ancient models are ancient. Please provide specific examples that back up your point, not obsolete .PDFs to comb through.

lazarus01 9mo ago
Your ideas are quite weak and you ask for overwhelming proof, but not willing to read any research. That’s just intellectually lazy. Perhaps if you took some time to learn from the experts, those who create these systems and really understand what’s happening you would realize these limitations in AI are widely known. Take a look around the 5 minute mark. https://youtu.be/PqVbypvxDto?si=gZq-2yEuE4sTeQZe https://youtu.be/PqVbypvxDto?si=gZq-2yEuE4sTeQZe Just understand you are dead wrong in your assumptions.
- CamperBob2 9mo ago
  You appear to be arguing with someone who isn't here (or else you replied to the wrong post.) Your personal fallacy of choice appears to be, "LLMs aren't godlike and infallible only a few years after being invented, despite absolutely no one ever claiming they were, so it's all a bunch of empty hype." No one cares about the state of the art. Only the first couple of time derivatives matters. You're not getting smarter, but the models are. How are those examples coming along, by the way? The ones that prove that IMO-level models aren't reasoning, but just getting really, really lucky?