4 ms·
>You're making a huge logical leap. There is nothing equivalent about these claims other than that they are made in English. You’re the one making the logical
by randomImmigrant 1mo ago
>You're making a huge logical leap. There is nothing equivalent about these claims other than that they are made in English.
You’re the one making the logical leap claiming there’s thinking.
And yes, language contains a model of the world. And in so far as that’s compressed in a model, it has a world model. But its world model is static. Its weights don’t change when it gains experience, after its training period. To say that it’s “thinking” is bizarre when it remains untouched entirely by the process.
- lern_too_spel 1mo ago> You’re the one making the logical leap claiming there’s thinking. How? What problem that previously required human thinking is not solvable by these systems? You're applying some magical definition to thinking that you have not made public. > Its weights don’t change when it gains experience, after its training period. To say that it’s “thinking” is bizarre when it remains untouched entirely by the process. Two mistakes: 1. You don't need to learn to think. 2. Even the most basic sequence models update their internal state as you feed in tokens. You don't need to update the model weights themselves to learn.