6 ms·
To keep my usual rant short: I think you’re assuming a categorical distinction between those two types of innovations that just doesn’t exist. Calculus certainl
by bbor 5mo ago
To keep my usual rant short: I think you’re assuming a categorical distinction between those two types of innovations that just doesn’t exist. Calculus certainly required some fundamental paradigm shifts, but there’s a reason that they didn’t have to make up many words wholesale to explain it!
Also we shouldn’t be thinking about what LLMs are good at, but rather what any computer ever might be good at. LLMs are already only one (essential!) part of the system that produced this result, and we’ve only had them for 3 years.
Also also this is a tiny nitpick but: the fields medal is every 4 years, AFAIR. For that exact reason, probably!
- symfrog 5mo agoWe have had LLMs for much longer than 3 years.
- danielmarkbruce 5mo agoNo, we haven't, for any reasonable definition of L.
- wavemode 5mo agoOpenAI themselves must not have a "reasonable definition of L", then. Their own papers and press releases refer to GPT-2 (from 2019) as a "large language model". https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/ https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/
- danielmarkbruce 5mo agoYes, and 1.5 billion parameters meets no reasonable current definition of large. It would be considered a tiny language model. OpenAI themselves refer to their small/fast models as small models all over their documentation.
- wavemode 5mo agoThe term doesn't change its meaning because something new comes along. The point of the term "large" is to highlight the massive parameter count (compared to traditional statistical models, where having 1.5 billion parameters was basically unheard of). It leads to the "double decent" phenomenon that allows them to generalize in ways traditional statistical models can't. The idea that the "large" descriptor was just a subjective exclamation, like "oh wow this model is pretty large ain't it", is revisionism.
- danielmarkbruce 5mo agoyes, it does. That's why OpenAI refers to it's small models as small. They are just so different. The capabilities have changed dramatically. The use cases are wildly different. The architectures are quite different. Even the core idea of attention is different. Training them is materially different. Serving them is materially different. A 1.5 bill parameter model from 2019 is so different from today's LLMs that they really don't have much in common. What we have now is quite similar to what we had a couple years ago though.
- bbor 5mo agoThe term doesn't change its meaning because something new comes along. ...you're gonna flip when you hear about how language works :)
- Yizahi 5mo agoSure we do, since Fei-Fei Li and team created that annotated dataset, which allowed to train first LLMs. So LLMs are here for more than a decade already.
- danielmarkbruce 5mo agoYou are confused by what the L and L mean in LLM, or which data set she created, or both, or in general.
- Yizahi 5mo agoOr it is you who are confused. And I want to remind you that you can't retcon historical word use.
- danielmarkbruce 5mo agoFei Fei was annotating images... the second L in LLM is for "language". The first language models named LLM at the time were trained on language data, with an objective function of predicting the next token. It had nothing to do with the imagenet data. Imagenet data was used in... vision models. The attention is all you need paper didn't ever use the term LLM or large language model because the phrase didn't exist in industry. Why comment on a field you know nothing about?
- Nevermark 5mo agoI took humans thousands of years, then hundreds of years, to come to terms with very basic concepts about numbers. Its amazing to me when people talk about recombining things, or following up on things as somehow lesser work. People can't separate the perspective they were given when they learned the concepts, that those who developed the concepts didn't have because they didn't exist. Simple things are hard, or everything simple would have been done hundreds of years ago, and that is certainly not the case. Seeing something others have not noticed is very hard, when we don't have the concepts that the "invisible" things right in front of us will teach us.
- adi_kurian 5mo agoAnyone in the arts is aware that creativity is not the new, it is the repackaging of what already exists into something that is itself new.
- godelski 5mo agoIt's why the invention of teaching has been so important. Took a long time for humans to develop calculus. A long time to then refine it and make it much more useful. But then in a year or two an average person can learn what took hundreds of years to invent. It's crazy to equate these tasks as being the same. Even incremental innovation is difficult. You have to see something billions of people haven't. But there's also paradigm shifts and well... if you're not considered crazy at first then did you really shift a paradigm?
- nextaccountic 5mo agoFine, 8 years? That's not a long time
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5mo agoWhen people say this what they mean is that we've had plausibly useful LLMs for around three years, and I would say that is basically true.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5mo agoWhen people say this what they mean is that we've had plausibly useful LLMs for around three years, and I would say that is basically true. The stuff before 2023 could barely be classified above the level of an interesting toy.
- pegasus 5mo agoThe fundamental paradigm shift is the categorical distinction. And what would constitute many new words for you? It introduced a bunch of concepts and terms which we take for granted today, including "derivative", "integral", "infinitesimal", "limit" and even "function", the latter two not a new words, but what does it matter? – the associated meanings were new.
- azakai 5mo agoThere was a lot new in calculus, but it also didn't come out of nowhere. That Newton and Leibniz came up with similar ideas in parallel, independently, around the same time (what are the odds?), supports that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculu...
- m4x 5mo agoI think your comment about inventing new words is an interesting one. One of the things that I believe limits our ability to discover new ideas is our ability to describe related concepts. For example, the reason we still can't have clear discussions on consciousness is probably partly due to the fact that the necessary concepts haven't been cemented in language. We need new language before we can describe consciousness. I would guess LLMs are limited in their ability to be genuinely novel because they are trained on a fixed language. It makes research into the internal languages developed by LLMs during training all the more interesting.