4 ms·

The question is to what end? This is a benchmark task, because playing chess, or solving other well-understood problems is more of a party trick than it is usef

by lionkor 18d ago

The question is to what end? This is a benchmark task, because playing chess, or solving other well-understood problems is more of a party trick than it is useful. If you let the LLM write a chess program, which it can ONLY do because there are already so many chess programs out there, then the benchmark becomes about recall of popular program source code, not chess.

MattCruikshank 18d ago
Do you want to measure the ability of the box, or measure the ability of the box with one hand tied behind its back? More to my point, I think it's stupid to have LLMs do work that should be done by programs... programs potentially written by LLMs. I'm advising people that they should think about this distinction, themselves, when they have data and want answers.
- cbolton 18d ago
  Neither. As I said I want to measure cognitive abilities. Your "ability of the box" is like "economic potential" in my previous comment. If that's what you want to measure, fine. But I want a deeper understanding: what is the thing doing, how is it solving problems? I want to get a sense of its abilities that is richer than a one-dimensional scale.
  - MattCruikshank 18d ago
    I agree that it's a fascinating to crawl inside an LLM, and also to crawl inside of a human, and try to understand the processes and limitations. Like, Phineas Gage is one of the most remarkable learning opportunities we ever had. That said, it's really weird to me when people use (and judge) LLMs one way... and won't try using them another way. Like, to judge their utility, I think we should be open to letting them write code, and use the code they produce. Otherwise, it's like judging a Chromebook without an internet connection. Like, this was one of the most dishonest ads I've ever seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDy9AUQJ3Fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDy9AUQJ3Fg This lamp, without a working power outlet? It really doesn't do anything...
    - cbolton 18d ago
      I completely agree.

by lionkor 18d ago

MattCruikshank 18d ago

Do you want to measure the ability of the box, or measure the ability of the box with one hand tied behind its back? More to my point, I think it's stupid to have LLMs do work that should be done by programs... programs potentially written by LLMs. I'm advising people that they should think about this distinction, themselves, when they have data and want answers.

cbolton 18d ago
Neither. As I said I want to measure cognitive abilities. Your "ability of the box" is like "economic potential" in my previous comment. If that's what you want to measure, fine. But I want a deeper understanding: what is the thing doing, how is it solving problems? I want to get a sense of its abilities that is richer than a one-dimensional scale.
- MattCruikshank 18d ago
  I agree that it's a fascinating to crawl inside an LLM, and also to crawl inside of a human, and try to understand the processes and limitations. Like, Phineas Gage is one of the most remarkable learning opportunities we ever had. That said, it's really weird to me when people use (and judge) LLMs one way... and won't try using them another way. Like, to judge their utility, I think we should be open to letting them write code, and use the code they produce. Otherwise, it's like judging a Chromebook without an internet connection. Like, this was one of the most dishonest ads I've ever seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDy9AUQJ3Fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDy9AUQJ3Fg This lamp, without a working power outlet? It really doesn't do anything...
  - cbolton 18d ago
    I completely agree.