FishInTheWater

6 ms·

1.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
If your "proof" can't port to Humans then it's not proof Learn to take a hint. I'm not going to argue this on human terms because you're playing a dumb um-akshually game. Computer reasoning systems can solve
2.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
It's an impressive result, but shouldn't be seen as "correction". Framing it as a (drastic) reduction in mistakes is more useful here. If the model is productionized (read: dumbed down so it isn't as expensive to ru
3.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
Humans provide increasingly wrong answers as questions get more complex too. Human this, Human that. LLMs aren't humans. "My model is crap but the human brain isn't very good at this either" is irrelevant when we have
4.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
This is where the terminology becomes a bit annoying, but there is a key difference in the kinds of reasoning at work here. When you ask LLMs to provide a reasoning, the actual reasoning performed is linguistic; The LLM has (is) a model abo
5.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
You're missing the point, there is a difference; The answers are often wrong, and more-wrong the more complex the question gets. They're only able to answer simple (relative-to-the-model's-size) straightforward reasoning ques
6.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
Given a set of instructions, an instruction fine-tuned/aligned LLM is able (conditional on size and training quality) to reason through a set of steps to produce a desired output. This is plainly wrong. The model's growing size
7.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
This is setting the bar way too high. No. If these things are claimed to be sources of truth, then the bar needs to be that high. It is precisely because people don't fact-check that the bar has to be so high.
8.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
The issue with them is that it's not simply "looking at oneself". If you were using divination for that purposes then it's no issue. Harmless superstition is fine. But things like personality tests and other pseudoscienc
9.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
That's the trick. It's about feelings of certainty, not actual measurable reproduceable predictions. Most long-lived divination methods are very vague. Anything providing concrete predictions is easily proven wrong and discredit
10.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
You're assuming here that there has to be "real" value at the root. This isn't really true. Astrology, Tarot, the I Ching, or any other kind of divination all serve the same purpose: To provide certainty where there is
11.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
A transformer can only memorize , it doesn't learn to do . For what that concerns us here: LLMs will never learn to fact-check anything. They'll blindly regurgitate the facts they have been "taught", but never consider
12.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
your rules will have not objective justification, and will be based on the personal philosophies of those in charge. The "objective" safety standards are often a lot more philosophical than you think. There is no "objective
13.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
For personal ethics, they are mere opinion as you get to choose what those ethics are. For professional ethics, those ethics are the opinions of the relevant professional associations and regulatory bodies. They are facts in the sense tha
14.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
Remember that database rights are a thing. One cannot hold copyright facts, but one can "copyright" a collection of facts like a search index or a map.
15.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
"Living History" is a well crafted written experience, not procedurally generated slop. The issue here is that LLMs can only act in-character if the world has already been built and written , if the prompts are so pre-chewed that
16.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
But it isn't different. People have been using things like Markov chains to experiment with NPC dialogue for well over a decade. It just never got widespread adoption because it's just not interesting , and LLMs are no different
17.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
It's not so much about formal logic, but general predictability. even with formally composable languages like JavaScript, a semblance of unpredictability — akin to the "faerie logic" metaphor — still persists And they'
18.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
but you can tune your prompts so that 100% of the time they give you a valid result in the result You can't though, that's the issue. Illustrative here are tokens like "SolidGoldMagikarp", but this does happen to &quot
19.
by FishInTheWater 3y ago
Prompt "engineering" is just writing prayers to forest faeries. Whilst BASIC/JavaScript/etc are all magic incantations to a child, a child will soon figure out there's underlaying logic, and learn the ability to rea
20.
by FishInTheWater 4y ago
> What a tricky problem to solve at scale because of the tragedy of the commons (As in; "I'm sure someone - not me - will be a sponsor for this project") We have solutions for tragedies of the commons like this: Profession