3 ms·
In other words, it's solving a problem.
by raincole 7mo ago
In other words, it's solving a problem.
- qsera 7mo agoA random sentence can also generate correct solution to a problem once in a long while...does not mean that it "solved" anything..
- kranner 7mo agoBet you didn't come up with that comment by first discarding a bunch of unsuitable comments.
- bfivyvysj 7mo agoHow often do you self edit before submitting?
- virgildotcodes 7mo agoYou learned what was unsuitable over your entire life until now by making countless mistakes in human interaction. A basic AI chat response also doesn't first discard all other possible responses.
- ivalm 7mo agobecause commenting is easy and solving hard problems is hard
- raincole 7mo agoI hired an artist for an oil painting. The artist drew 10 pencil sketches and said "hmm I think this one works the best" and finished the painting based on it. I said he didn't one shot it and therefore he has no ability to paint, and refused to pay him.
- slg 7mo agoYes, but is it "intelligence" is a valid question. We have known for a long time that computers are a lot faster than humans. Get a dumb person who works fast enough and eventually they'll spit out enough good work to surpass a smart person of average speed. It remains to be seen whether this is genuinely intelligence or an infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters situation. And I'm not sure why this specific example is worthy enough to sway people in one direction or another.
- rmast 7mo agoMaybe infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters hitting the statistically most likely next key based on their training.
- virgildotcodes 7mo agoThe real question is how to define intelligence in a way that isn't artificially constrained to eliminate all possibilities except our own.
- parasubvert 7mo agoSomeone actually mathed out infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters, and it turns out, it is a great example of how misleading probabilities are when dealing with infinity: "Even if every proton in the observable universe (which is estimated at roughly 1080) were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10^360,641 observable universes made of protonic monkeys." Often infinite things that are probability 1 in theory, are in practice, safe to assume to be 0. So no. LLMs are not brute force dummies. We are seeing increasingly emergent behavior in frontier models.
- staticassertion 7mo ago> So no. LLMs are not brute force dummies. We are seeing increasingly emergent behavior in frontier models. Woah! That was a leap. "We are seeing ... emergent behaviors" does not follow from "it's not brute force". It is unsurprising that an LLM performs better than random! That's the whole point. It does not imply emergence.
- parasubvert 7mo ago> It is unsurprising that an LLM performs better than random! That's the whole point. It does not imply emergence. By definition, it is emergent behavior when it exhibits the ability to synthesize solutions to problems that it wasn't trained on. I.e. it can handle generalization.