11 ms·
The most surprising part: the agent had access to both H100s and H200s. Without being told, it noticed H200s scored better and started screening ideas on H100s,
by zhwu 6mo ago
The most surprising part: the agent had access to both H100s and H200s. Without being told, it noticed H200s scored better and started screening ideas on H100s, then promoting winners to H200s for validation. That strategy emerged entirely on its own.
- Aboutplants 6mo agoYeah I thought that was a particularly neat part
- rogerrogerr 6mo agoWhy do we think this emerged “on its own”? Surely this technique has been discussed in research papers that are in the training set.
- fdghrtbrt 6mo agoWhy surely? Have you never seen an LLM try something new?
- rogerrogerr 6mo agoIs your assertion that no one has ever written "we tried some stuff on the small inexpensive platform first, then moved to the bigger more expensive platform with the more promising options" in a research paper or literally anywhere else?
- fdghrtbrt 6mo agoNo, that's not my assertion. In fact I asserted nothing at all.
- rogerrogerr 6mo agoYou're speaking in riddles; your communication would be more effective if you didn't do that.
- fdghrtbrt 6mo agoYou said "surely", and I asked: > Why surely? Have you never seen an LLM try something new? I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler than this. And I still don't know the answer to how you're so sure. To me there's several explanations, and it seems to you there's only one. I'm pretty happy with my communication style.
- frank_nitti 6mo agoSeems to me the commenter was asking: what observations led us to conclude that original affirmative statement that “the AI did this entirely on its own”. Given that this is a common technique and not a novel invention, it’s probably present in the training set. The “surely” reads like it’s referring to the presence of that information in the training set. But your response casts it as saying “surely the AI has not invented something on its own”. The original question stands IMO, the burden of proof is on whoever is asserting that the AI has invented something on its own, with or without training data that surely already mentions this approach
- fdghrtbrt 6mo agoThere is no burden of proof on me, because I'm not asserting that AI has invented something on its own. I haven't told you what my view is or whether I ever have a view. The problem with the reasoning of the person I was responding to is that it's assuming "if X is in the training set and LLM outputs X, then it did so because X is in the training set". That does not follow. Conceivably it's possible that X is in the training set and LLM outputs X, but if X hadn't been in the training set the LLM also would've output X. Lets look at that phrase again: > Why do we think this emerged “on its own”? Surely this technique has been discussed in research papers that are in the training set. This phrase implies "if X was in the training set, then LLM couldn't have come up with X on its own". This is false. In fact, my claim that the implication is false is testable, in the following manner: Have two training sets, T and T'. In T, X is present. In T' you've removed X but left X-adjacent things. Train LLM A on T and A' on T'. Find a prompt that requires that A outputs X. If on the same prompt A' also outputs X, that's an example of my claim. To repeat, my claim is "it's possible that X is in the training set and LLM outputs X, but if X hadn't been in the training set the LLM also would've output X." In fact, I've just realized I even have a method for constructing (T, T') that guarantees what I've described. Not sure if it's worth a paper on its own though.
- caconym_ 6mo agoI honestly don't think I have. In this case, using a cheap(er) signal or heuristic as an initial filter before spending more resources on cases that pass the filter is a pattern that shows up all over the place, and LLMs are good at picking up on patterns like that and generalizing them. AFAICT.
- anon291 6mo agoI'm not sure how people say this so confidently. I have a rather esoteric haskell library that I've written and published for years. ChatGPT and Claude both know about it and frequently help me improve it, and propose completely novel approaches. I'm really not sure how people are so confident that they can't think of anything new. This seems like wishful confirmation bias.
- caconym_ 6mo ago> I'm not sure how people say this so confidently. Say what, exactly?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- GorbachevyChase 6mo agoYou probably express very few truly original ideas. Let’s not set the bar quite so high unless we are all just a sad simulacrum of “pure” thought.
- suddenlybananas 6mo agoBut humans are capable of very many original ideas. Look around you, humans were able to remake the entire world because of these original thoughts.
- deadbabe 6mo agoOriginal ideas are easy if you allow for bad ideas.
- rullelito 6mo agoThen "on its own" has no meaning, i.e. everything an LLM does is "on its own".
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- hhh 6mo agoWhy?… The experiment.yaml shows that it is calling h100/200 explicitly, it’s pretty common for humans to say “number bigger more gooder” for anything… Lie and reverse the values and see what happens. I would put money on a rabbit hole of complaining about it being misconfigured.
- ed 6mo agoModels are familiar with H100’s. They even predate ChatGPT.
- TheJord 6mo ago[dead]