3 ms·
> If that's the case, then, what's the wall? I didn’t say that is the case, I said it could be. Do you understand the difference? And if it is the case, it do
by latexr 10mo ago
> If that's the case, then, what's the wall?
I didn’t say that is the case, I said it could be. Do you understand the difference?
And if it is the case, it doesn’t immediately follow that we would know right now what exactly the wall would be. Often you have to hit it first. There are quite a few possible candidates.
- ACCount37 10mo agoAnd there could be a teapot in an orbit around the Sun. Do we have any evidence for that being the case though? So far, there's a distinct lack of "wall" to be seen - and a lot of the proposed "fundamental" limitations of LLMs were discovered to be bogus with interpretability techniques, or surpassed with better scaffolding and better training.
- latexr 10mo ago> And there could be a teapot in an orbit around the Sun. I think you’re confused. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. You asserted LLMs have a finite number of steps to go to reach (overcome?) human limits. You don’t know that. It hasn’t happened. You can’t prove it. I, on the other hand, merely pointed out that is not a certainty. Your teapot argument works against you.
- ACCount37 10mo agoThe case against "hard wall": every "hard wall" that was predicted so far was bypassed, and the measured performance keeps going up steadily. The case for "hard wall": wishful thinking.
- Yossarrian22 10mo agoHe’s not saying there is a hard wall he’s saying there’s a point where we’ll need new techniques or technologies not just refine the current one. Less of a hard barrier like the speed of light than an innovative one like creating artificial ammonia to make industrial amounts of fertilizer to support increasing crop amounts