aspenmartin

6 ms·

31.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
This is just a misconception of how LLMs work and also what reasoning is. “There cannot be any reasoning embedded in the model” a strong statement, what do you mean by reasoning because by any reasonable definition I’m aware of, they clearl
32.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
“It sounds like you believe” is a question, inviting your clarification. I will continue doing that because it’s perfectly reasonable. Also “machines have no driving force to act in the world” is also a mysterious statement but because you
33.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
“They don’t understand” is a strong statement, maybe true but depends on what you mean by understand. What is your definition of this? I can’t think of a meaningful definition of “understand” that doesn’t apply to LLMs
34.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Yea it’s rejection sampling, so you have an agent, you take a verifiable problem (people use lots of different verification signals but say unit tests etc) and have the agent attempt it K times. You accept the trajectories (all context, too
35.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
You’re describing the problem of continual learning. As I said their “consciousness” for lack of a better term and knowledge does already change from ongoing experience in context which is another of saying for only a short window, toda
36.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
That’s strange to me, what would you define as learning?
37.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Same with humans? Doctors, scientists...if a tool has any error rate above zero its not reliable?
38.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
You are implying definitions that don't seem to be mainstream; thinking is internally manipulating information to reason, infer, plan, solve problems, and form judgments or beliefs. Also -- "Without a prompt an LLM does nothing. I
39.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
They do learn in context, and very sample efficiently. Continual learning is active area of research and we sort of already have something resembling it with persistent context. So yes they do learn.
40.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Right but hallucination rates have been consistently decreasing every model iteration. It's about error rates. As also a fellow scientist, I also will mess something up. Humans have an error rate. Once that error rate is low enough, it
41.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Data curation is important and expensive and frontier labs can afford to do it right. Natural data isn't the limitation, we are already literally out of tokens. It doesn't matter how much you poison things it's not going to s
42.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
It's not really a problem. We're out of natural tokens anyway. The future is synthetic verifiable traces (already the way we train coding agents).
43.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
If you get to E you have generated a Bayes-optimal model of the conditional distribution (as in, next token conditional on context). This is something I thought too, but even if you're a fraction of a nat above the floor, you could hav
44.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Right but that is context dependent; it drops with context length, depends on tokenizer, etc. It doesn't end up being super relevant, despite the fact that if you look at the loss for real models it's relatively large in absolute
45.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
I really wish more people skeptical of AI capabilities would read about scaling laws -- Lilian is always so marvelous at giving a deep overview of the technical side but the whole point of this is: there are scaling laws, and they hold an
46.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
> Every year since 2023 the models are too dangerous to release and in 12 months all white collar jobs will be obsolete. This might not have been a deliberate lie but it's clearly been untrue and they've said it again and again
47.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Be specific, what are you talking about. Industry has been continuously warning about many of the complex problems that are going to happen as a clear consequence of the technology. I don’t know of any problem they have talked about that ha
48.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Well the good thing is you’ve done the homework to definitively demonstrate that this is remotely true. These confident claims of this all being some sort of unprofitable Ponzi scheme, not understanding the concept of a growth phase which a
49.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
What was the dog and pony show?
50.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
> They were actively trying to make the doom happen while trying to cash out maximally on doom trolling. These words make no sense. Anthropic delayed mythos/fable rollout. A mythos model without safeguards would have been a pretty b
51.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Be specific, what do you consider their lies to be? Also, this is pretty straightforward. You have a decade of extremely stable and predictable performance trajectory. It’s easy to see the writing on the wall. You can feel whatever which wa
52.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Well I would say you just chose ANOTHER sensible path with tradeoffs just like frontier API/subscriptions. Yes you get 100% control, cheaper inference, not having to stare at status.claude.com for like 2 hours per week, complete privac
53.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
My favorite part is how people compare AI to crypto as if they are remotely in the same universe of importance and impact
54.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
And in response to this we have a very robust UBI system for horses
55.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Absolutely, you are right even though many may consider this too snarky. But herein lies the fork in the road. - consider that right now autonomous drones operate in Ukraine using the latest and greatest frontier models - consider that fasc
56.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
If you mean the technology diffuses into all products and processes instead of some standalone production that maybe makes sense to me but the models themselves feel like a product
57.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
To me I don’t really see this; electricity, the internet, etc: aggregate employment numbers don’t change work just gets shifted around. But your workers at the very least will be way more productive and that’s the sell.
58.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Yes but what evidence is there that they aren’t? To me, scaling laws and empirical benchmark trends along with high adoption (all of this together, not individually) strongly support this, and also coding agents have become load bearing so
59.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Does it need to?
60.
by aspenmartin 4mo ago
Frontier model companies aren’t banking on the general public “wanting” AI. They are on a path to a product that won’t need to be wanted because the entire economy will need it.

More ›