I think this is a creative approach. I wonder how the success rates for that little RNN compare to the success rates of the primary LLM, especially for complex queries or complex tool calls. At some point you have to scale that network up large enough to get better results. Eventually you've come back around and you might as well use an LLM. I think a similar approach with potentially better results (depends on the application) could be accomplished by using that same dataset to finetune a small language model. It'd be interesting to see some success rate comparisons.
thank you, appreciate the comment! thats a great point -- as I'm developing this intuition, I'm designing an eval which does a comparison of the openAI example there + tool call using a simple RNN + one that uses an encoder model. would love more feedback (on blog / X etc) when I post.
Is it realistic to think that the poors will start their own economy servicing each other? I'm sure there would be chaos and violence for a period but eventually it seems like the path upward would be a whole new economic system for that 98%. This system could even make use of the automation offered by AI.
Do something to help everyone else stuck in the system. Hire lobbyists to improve healthcare in the US. All the other rich people are just trying to make things worse and extract as much as possible.
"Our AI agent finds precisely what you ask for, 10-50x better than Google Scholar"
I was curious how this was measured since benchmarking accuracy for LLMs is tough. Found this in the paper:
"This classification accuracy was benchmarked by manually analyzing over 400 papers across a range of representative searches, and comparing the human evaluation to the language model’s judgment"
I'm skeptical that their dataset of 400 papers with 3 classification labels (highly relevant, closely related, or ignorable) is large enough to represent the diversity of queries they're going to get from users. To be clear, I don't think this undermine's (haha) the value of what they've built, still very cool.
"We are told that technology takes our jobs, reduces our wages, increases inequality, threatens our health, ruins the environment, degrades our society, corrupts our children, impairs our humanity, threatens our future, and is ever on the verge of ruining everything."
Ok, fair enough. I wouldn't pin any of these issues on "technology". I lay them at the feet of "businesses" specifically operating within a capitalist landscape. Unfortunately "technology" is tightly coupled to "businesses" in the Western world and I don't think that removing constraints on the latter will benefit anyone except, you know... rich people.
"We believe the techno-capital machine of markets and innovation never ends, but instead spirals continuously upward. Comparative advantage increases specialization and trade. Prices fall, freeing up purchasing power, creating demand. Falling prices benefit everyone who buys goods and services, which is to say everyone. Human wants and needs are endless, and entrepreneurs continuously create new goods and services to satisfy those wants and needs, deploying unlimited numbers of people and machines in the process."
Calls for further doubling down on Capitalism given the dire inequality and our inability to meet even basic needs for so many people in our already rich society strikes me as the utmost expression of societal tone deaf.
The path integral suggests that all of the possible realities are like waves. When these waves are added up, they can interfere with each other in a way that only one of the possible realities can be seen. It's like when you throw two stones into a pond at the same time. The waves created by the stones will interfere with each other and create a single pattern on the surface of the water. In the same way, the path integral suggests that all of the possible realities can interfere with each other and create a single reality.
Alternative realities may have alternative people living in them - will they observe different laws of physics since their reality is not a sum of all realities, as opposed to ours? Or would they have the same conclusion about sum of realities?
A) these realities can't have people - they're not real enough to be called that
B) physics will be different - that would be a great scientific revelation
C) physics will be the same - making the premise meaningless
