4 ms·

>This is obviously no longer the case today. Advancement in capability does not mean the mechanism is the different. The LLM name denotes a very specific mecha

• frozenseven 2mo ago
  >The LLM name denotes a very specific mechanism.. No, not really. This is just the term that stuck around. The "large" is now up to five orders of magnitude larger and "language model" has gone far beyond any simple notion of modeling a singular natural language. And anything you'd cite about transformers, or tokens, or autoregression, etc., is more of a factoid about what works best and happens to be the most convenient in the here and now. I see all of this as an unbroken continuation of work that's been going on since the 1940s. Instead of trying to play word games, why can't you just read Tao's article?
  • qsera 2mo ago
    > The "large" is now up to five orders of magnitude larger and "language model" has gone far beyond any simple notion of modeling a singular natural language. Does not matter. It is still an LLM. And I am not the one who is playing word games. You and your idols are, for sake of marketing.
    • frozenseven 2mo ago
      >Does not matter. It is still an LLM. Cool. So now you can accept that "LLMs" are an obvious example of AI. >You and your idols are, for sake of marketing. Let's be very clear here. Terence Tao is arguably the greatest mathematician alive. Yet, you are throwing lazy insults and accusations around because you don't like the term "AI". And that's my final comment for you, troll.
      • qsera 2mo ago
        > So now you can accept that "LLMs" are an obvious example of AI... Not sure what this has to do with what I said. A lot of things have been called "AI" in various times. None of them including the current crop of LLMs are not really AI. But people use AI term loosly and that is fine. But it is a problem when a some thought leader does it. >troll. Tell me you have run out of arguments without saying you have run out of arguments...
    • amoss 2mo ago
      If you place an LLM into a harness, alongside evaluation, feedback and problem decomposition / solution integration - it is still an LLM? There is an LLM acting as a component in a larger system. But that larger system is not an LLM. Calling it an "AI" is indeed an act of marketing as there is no learning / adjustment as we would expect from an intelligence, but calling it an LLM seems to be inaccurate. So what is it?
      • frozenseven 2mo ago
        >Calling it an "AI" is indeed an act of marketing Again, this is literally the name of the field (and the tech). It's been around longer than you and probably your parents. Dartmouth workshop (1956): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_workshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_workshop Random dusty undergrad textbook from the early 70s: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/816fxHVJkHL._SL1500_.jpg https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/816fxHVJkHL._SL1500_.jpg >there is no learning... If human-like continual learning is suddenly the standard, you can just as easily say that terms like machine learning and deep learning are an "act of marketing".
        • amoss 2mo ago
          Quoting directly from the dartmouth conference: "every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it."
          • frozenseven 2mo ago
            Yes, that's correct. Intelligence is not magic.
            • amoss 2mo ago
              No, it is the application of learning and that is why learning is central to the definition tgat you pointed at.
      • chrisjj 2mo ago