7 ms·
That's entirely true. We've tried hard to stick with general principles that we don't think will readily be overturned. But doubtless we've been too assertive f
by ctbergstrom 2y ago
That's entirely true. We've tried hard to stick with general principles that we don't think will readily be overturned. But doubtless we've been too assertive for some people's taste and doubtless we'll be wrong in places. Hence the choice to develop not a static book but rather living document that will evolve with time. The field is developing too fast for anything else.
With respect to what the future brings, we do try to address a bit of that in Lesson 16: https://thebullshitmachines.com/lesson-16-the-first-step-fallacy/index.html https://thebullshitmachines.com/lesson-16-the-first-step-fal...
- mr_toad 2y ago> we don't think will readily be overturned I think that’s entirely the problem. You’re making linear predictions of the capabilities of non-linear processes. Eventually the predictions and the reality will diverge.
- habinero 2y agoThere's no evidence to support that's the case.
- interstice 2y agoSaid the turkey to the farmer
- falcor84 2y agoI don't think that's how that metaphor works.
- interstice 2y agoNot quite, but it was the closest pithy quote I could think of to convey the point that things can be false for a long time before they are suddenly true without warning.
- habinero 2y agoHow about "Yes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown?" We heard alllllll the same hype about how revolutionary the blockchain was going to be and look how that turned out. It's a virtue to point out the emperor has no clothes. It's not a virtue to insist clothes tech is close to being revolutionary and if you just understand it harder, you'd see the space where the clothes go.
- pama 2y agoEvery time someone claimed “emerging” behavior in LLMs it was exactly that. I can probably count more than 100 of these cases, many unpublished, but surely it is easy to find evidence by now.