foobarqux

8 ms·

61.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> You have provided zero evidence to the contrary and have now shifted the goalposts to a vague, subjective debate about "usefulness.". The original comment is right there. You can read. I literally provided several examples of
62.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> This was the original point of contention... The original point of contention was that the "percent that approve" of the film that RT uses is surprising and not as useful as a regular rating system. (By the way the average sc
63.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> If you only trust a dozen specific critics, you should just read them directly It's much quicker and easier to just get an aggregated Metascore, which takes a second (and allows you to go in blind). I don't have any desire to
64.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> RT still amasses a few hundred critics, and yes it matters statistically because scores will almost certainly decrease (or at the least be unstable) with more reviews until a statically significant threshold. There aren't a hundre
65.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not the same site and have different audiences. Yes we are talking about aggregating critic reviews. It's true if you like what the mass audience likes you'll be fine with any kind of crude
66.
by foobarqux 1y ago
It’s just not true in practice: it’s pretty typical to find films with high rotten tomatoes scores and not very high metacritic scores; rotten tomatoes scores are pretty much useless unless you are not very discerning. Examples:sovereign, h
67.
by foobarqux 1y ago
I managed to get this working with gemini by using a proxy [1] and the following config (I used quelpa) (use-package efrit :quelpa (efrit :fetcher git :repo "steveyegge/efrit") :init (setq efrit-model "
68.
by foobarqux 1y ago
Why doesn't huggingface list the aggregate model size?
69.
by foobarqux 1y ago
That's not the argument being made though, which is that it does "work" now and implying that actually it didn't quite work before; except that that is the same thing the same people say for every model release, includ
70.
by foobarqux 1y ago
The authors of that paper misunderstand what "impossible languages" refers to. It doesn't refer to any language a human can't learn. It refers to computationally simple plausible alternative languages that humans can&#x2
71.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> Since GPT mimics human language so convincingly, I've been wondering if there's any overlap of these two generative systems. It's not really relevant if there is overlap, I'm sure you can list a bunch of ways they a
72.
by foobarqux 1y ago
This is getting away from the original point which is that deep neural networks are, by default, not explanatory in the way Einstein's theory of relativity is. But even so, > In other words, I would claim that as a model more closel
73.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> The most accurate models of anything necessarily account for the underlying mechanisms But they don't necessarily convey understanding to humans. Prediction is not explanation. There is a difference between Einstein's General
74.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> Where is the research on impossible language that infants can't acquire? A good popsci article would give me leads here. It's not infants, it's adults but Moro "Secrets of Words" is a book that describes the ex
75.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> I read it and found nothing similar to “Stop wasting your time; naval vessels do it all the time.” You implied in the previous paragraph that you didn't in fact read it and you only "skimmed" it. Maybe that's why yo
76.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> Suggestion for you then, in your first response you would have been clearer to say "The reason Chomsky seems like such a retard here, is because he clings to irrelevant nonsense" If science is irrelevant to you it's you
77.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> After reading it seems even more true that Chomsky's Tom Jones is a strawman. Lol. It's clear you are not interested in having any kind of rational discussion on the topic and are driven by some kind of zealotry when you clai
78.
by foobarqux 1y ago
It's not a negative, it's just not what humans do, which is Chomsky's (a person studying what humans do) point. As I said in another comment this whole dispute would be put to bed if people understood that they don't car
79.
by foobarqux 1y ago
The latter. Moro showed that you can construct simple language rules, in particular linear rules, like the third word of every sentence modifies the noun, that humans have a hard time learning (specifically they use different parts of their
80.
by foobarqux 1y ago
I don't really understand your question but if a deep neural network predicts the weather we don't have any problem accepting that the deep neural network is not an explanatory model of the weather (the weather is not a neural net
81.
by foobarqux 1y ago
Yes it's true, you can read my response to one of the authors @canjobear describing the problem with that paper in the comment linked below. But to summarize: in order to show what they want to show they have to take the simple, intere
82.
by foobarqux 1y ago
It's not irrelevant, it's the core of the disconnect: The problem is that everyone is arguing as if they passionately care about how humans work when, as you say, they don't care at all. People should just recognize, as you h
83.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> The truth is that all of the progress on machine learning is absolutely science It is not science, which is the study of the natural world. You are using the word "science" as an honorific, meaning something like "useful
84.
by foobarqux 1y ago
"Tom Jones" isn't a strawman, Chomsky is addressing an actual argument in a published paper from Steven Piantadosi. He's using a pseudonym to be polite and not call him out by name. > instead of even attempting to sum
85.
by foobarqux 1y ago
Yes, studying human language is actually inherently defined by what humans do, just -- as he points out, if you could understand the article -- studying insect navigation is defined by what insects do and not what navigation systems human c
86.
by foobarqux 1y ago
It doesn't, it just says that LLMs are not useful models of the human language faculty.
87.
by foobarqux 1y ago
> LLMs do surface real linguistic structure... It's completely irrelevant because the point he's making is that LLMs operate differently from human languages as evidenced by the fact that they can learn language structures that
88.
by foobarqux 1y ago
The author himself explicitly acknowledges the paper but the incomprehensibly ignores it ("Even so, many would like to understand, predict, and even facilitate the emergence of these capabilities."). It's like saying "so
89.
by foobarqux 1y ago
There is so much tacit understanding by both LLM-boosters and LLM-skeptics that only becomes apparent when you look at the explicit details of how they are trying to use the tools. That's why I've asked in the past for examples of
90.
by foobarqux 1y ago
These are mostly value judgments and people are using words that mean different things to different people but I would point that LLM boosters have been saying the same thing for each product release: " now it works, you are just usin

More ›