3 ms·
I don't know why people are so impressed by 8h. I trained an LLM to write the whole Harry Potter series, and that took JK Rowling like 17 years. For my next p
by MadxX79 5mo ago
I don't know why people are so impressed by 8h.
I trained an LLM to write the whole Harry Potter series, and that took JK Rowling like 17 years.
For my next point on the graph, I'll train the LLM to write the Bible, something that took humans >1500 years.
- Leynos 5mo agoLook at the tasks in the benchmark (see §2 https://arxiv.org/html/2503.14499v3 https://arxiv.org/html/2503.14499v3)
- MadxX79 5mo agoYeah, what about them? As far as I read it the tasks are fixed. The AI companies should know the tasks by now, and have overfitted their models on the tests by now, in the same way I'm implying I overfitted my model to reproduce Harry Potter.
- Leynos 5mo agoYou can choose to believe that.
- Smaug123 5mo agoHave you used the models, out of interest? They routinely do things autonomously that are not in the training set that would take me 8h, and I wouldn't say I'm slow. The profile of tasks they can do this way is jagged, and maintaining architectural coherence ("months, not hours") is still beyond them, but they're perfectly capable of writing plans and sticking to them.
- MadxX79 5mo agoYeah, I use them all the time. I just don't see any good argument that it's anything other than statistical pattern matching plus some sort of logic encoded in language. My overfitted LLM obviously didn't arrive at Harry Potter the same way JK Rowling did, so the amount of time she spent writing it is completely irrelevant to any discussion about whether or not the LLM should be able to reproduce it. discussions of AGI if it took her an hour or a decade to write it, it has seen the result, so it can reproduce it.
- Smaug123 5mo agoI don't think you've addressed the fact that they can do long tasks that aren't in the training set? (And the fact that they're just statistical models isn't very relevant. So am I!)