4 ms·
It just acts fundamentally different than someone who would remember. If someone only remembered vague scraps of what you'd expect them to remember, you might
by knollimar 2mo ago
It just acts fundamentally different than someone who would remember.
If someone only remembered vague scraps of what you'd expect them to remember, you might say the person can't remember.
It's much closer to notetaking and reviewing before responding than it is memory.
The issue with anthropomorphizing like this is that "memory" comes with baggage of expectations for it to do certain things, and it breaks them.
Just like "thinking" implies chain of thought, but you'll frequently get those reasoning traces and then a 180 in the final message.
- a2ff6eeb0 2mo agoYeah, I think I've come to the conclusion that the biggest breakthrough we need before we can replace human thought is going to be some mechanism for live update of weights. "Learning" by injecting into context just isn't good enough. But billions of dollars are going towards research to find these breakthroughs, so we'll get there eventually.
- adzm 2mo agoThe AI doesn't actually go to sleep at night, it's [mechanistic explanation]
- red75prime 2mo ago> Just like "thinking" implies chain of thought, but you'll frequently get those reasoning traces and then a 180 in the final message. Be me, think extensively about an exam question, do 180 because the most probable option is just too obvious to be true (no, this part wasn't verbalized, it's how I describe what I felt about making the decision to do 180, or maybe it's a rationalization and it was a natural analog of an unfortunate sample from a probability distribution).