It is like having Google's MusicML output a mp3 of saxophone music and then ask what proof is there that MusicML has not learned to play the saxophone?
In a certain context that is only judging the output, what is meant by "play the saxophone", the model has achieved.
In another context of what is normally meant, the idea the model has learned to play the saxophone is completely ridiculous and not something anyone would even try to defend.
In the context of LLMs and intelligence/reasoning, I think we are mostly talking about the later and not the former.
"Maybe you don't have to blow throw a physical tube to make saxophone sounds, you can just train on tons of output of saxophone sounds then it is basically the same thing"
Let's limit the discussion to things that can be actually done with an LLM.
Getting one to blow on a saxophone is outside of this context.
An LLM can't blow on a saxophone period. However it can write and read English.
>In the context of LLMs and intelligence/reasoning, I think we are mostly talking about the later and not the former.
And I'm saying the later is completely wrong. I'm also saying the former is irrelevant. Look this is what you're doing. For the former you're comparing something humans can do to something LLMs Can't do. That's a completely irrelevant comparison.
for the later we are comparing things humans and LLMs BOTH can do. Sometimes humans give superior output, sometimes LLMs give superior output. Given similar inputs and outputs the internal analysis of what's going on whether it's true intelligence or true reasoning is NOT ridiculous.
"Ridiculous" is comparing things where no output exists. LLMs do not have saxophone output where they actually blow into an instrument. There's nothing to be compared here.
I just always assumed an "open office", really meaning a non-office, an empty building, was what was available for startups after the dot com bust in SF.
Then after the fact we made up a bunch of bullshit as to why this is some brilliant idea. Then this idea spread as if it was some kind of technological advancement because it worked for small tech companies trying to not spend money on furniture and walls.
We just aren't very good at any of this at scale. The open "office" and battle against remote work are different flavors of the same type of stupidity.
I think it is a really great article but I am a chef too already familiar with the ingredients and style of cooking.
I think the main issue is getting people to try new dishes.
Of course, the dishes have to be good and not just the chef fooling around. Sometimes this style seems like "hey try this new exotic dish! It is made from mixing organic ice cream, grass fed beef, fair trade coffee and sriracha. Oh you think it sucks? Well that is because your taste buds are use to standard western food!"
I think of how no one needs an intellectual explanation as to why pad thai is good even if they only ever had pizza and burgers.
I don't see how it really matters. A bigger issue is that some days there is just going to be nothing to report if you want "real" news.
"Today nothing happened, the end" would not work. So you would have to lower your standards for that day. On that day you would conflate what happened with entertainment and low and behold that day nothing actually happened is more popular than reality.
Loop this process over and over and we get what we have now.
I suspect we end up at the point we are at now no matter what the initial starting conditions or how you design the system.
"News" is a form of entertainment and to pretend it is not seems completely delusional to me.
I think it is like asking how do you get people to watch a movie of a professor giving a statistics lecture. You have to publicly fund it because no one is going to really watch or pay for that movie.
25 years ago I could never have imagined the internet we have today.
25 years from now we could easily have a free internet protocol that is taking hold and the whole process repeats.
So much has came and went in a single generation but it works both ways. It is not an eternally negative, march towards complete totalitarianism even if it it feels like that right now.
I am guessing you have never worked at a giant corporation with 5 levels of useless middle managers that have no purpose if there are no office politics to manage?
Those are the managers that hate work from home. Not managers actually doing productive management.
I don't personally see how an individual can judge this at this point unless it is a huge leap.
More importantly, if the model is not a huge leap at this point I just don't care if it is as good as the very limited models we already have because I am not impressed by any of these anymore.
Anything less than a 3.5 to 4 jump from here is just not going to vibe for me.
The truth is that we are very limited apes that are highly prone to self delusion and believing nonsense, trying to understand an impossibly complex world.
At the aggregate we seem to be making progress while at the individual level humanity always seems doomed. It seems a constant that the individual wants to pretend they live in the end times because at least then your time on this rock was a little bit special.
I’m more of what might be called “The Last Man” (as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not really enough of a Nietzsche reader to really throw out his terms but sometimes they do seem apropos). I’ve never wanted to be special; quite the opposite, I just want to be left alone to my TV, video games, and garden. Safety and comfort are what little condolence I take against the nihilism of existence. And it has become quite clear to me that climate change threatens that. What is strange to me is how many people believe that perturbing the Earth’s carbon cycle could not possibly have dire consequences for the Earth when not only has it happened before in the Earth’s history, we have models showing how bad it could possibly be and are already seeing the effects unfold. My suspicion is that I lack a lot of the denial mechanisms that get most people through the day and that they also prevent people from thinking that things can actually go wrong. Take it from someone who has seen quite a lot go wrong - they can.
In a certain context that is only judging the output, what is meant by "play the saxophone", the model has achieved.
In another context of what is normally meant, the idea the model has learned to play the saxophone is completely ridiculous and not something anyone would even try to defend.
In the context of LLMs and intelligence/reasoning, I think we are mostly talking about the later and not the former.
"Maybe you don't have to blow throw a physical tube to make saxophone sounds, you can just train on tons of output of saxophone sounds then it is basically the same thing"
The enter discussion is ridiculous.