• AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    It is far off. It’s like saying you have the entire knowledge of all physics because you skimmed a textbook once.

    Interpretation is also a problem that can be solved, current models do understand quite a lot of nuance, subtext and implicit context.

    But you’re moving the goal post here. We started at “don’t get better, at a plateau” and now you’re aiming for perfection.

    • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      You’re building beautiful straw men. They’re lies, but great job.

      I said originally that we need to improve the interpretation of the model by AI, not just have even bigger models that will invariably have the same flaw as they do now.

      Deterministic reliability is the end goal of that.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Will increasing the model actually help? Right now we’re dealing with LLMs that literally have the entire internet as a model. It is difficult to increase that.

        Making a better way to process said model would be a much more substantive achievement. So that when particular details are needed it’s not just random chance that it gets it right.

        Where exactly did you write anything about interpretation? Getting “details right” by processing faster? I would hardly call that “interpretation” that’s just being wrong faster.