The Sell ∀ ∃ as ∃ ∀ Scam

Post by sebzim4500 » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 10:42 PM UTC

dvt wrote: post #9

I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time: on one hand, yes, there's certainly a lot of Kool-Aid being drank by the AI folks. Even on HN, I constantly argue with people that genuinely think LLMs are some kind of magical black box that contain "knowledge" or "intelligence" or "meaning" when in reality, it's just a very fancy Markov chain. And on the other hand, I think that language interfaces are probably the n…

Post by alextheparrot » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 10:42 PM UTC

tialaramex wrote: post #34

TZubiri wrote: post #29

Are compilers a scam as well? There exists a program every problem you have, you just have to find the code.

Crucially there is not a program for every problem. Many (presumably "Almost all" in a mathematical sense) problems are Undecidable and so a program can't do that.

Post by sebzim4500 » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 10:43 PM UTC

version_five wrote: post #8

sebzim4500 wrote: post #5

>To conclude: one must have different standards for developing systems than for testing, deploying, or using systems. Or: testing on your training data is a common way to cheat, but so is training on your test data. Isn't this already a solved problem? Every reasonable paper on ML separates their test data from their validation data already.

That in no way prevents overfitting though hyperparameter optimization / graduate student descent. All the common benchmarks, by definition of being a common benchmark, are susceptible to overfitting

Post by 1023bytes » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 10:45 PM UTC

Post by justeleblanc » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 10:46 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #20

badloginagain wrote: post #10

If I understand correctly, the meat of the argument is "that is a system for every (∀) task, there exists (∃) a setting that gives the correct answer for that one task." My understanding of this (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the scam is convincing users that GPT-X can do anything with say, the correct prompts. This argument misses the mark for me. It's not that it solves all the problems, it's that the problems i…

Right #1 it’s not clear that this ∃ ∀ construction is a fair representation of what is being ‘sold’ by GPT-x #2 it’s also not clear what this proposed inverted formulation (∀ ∃) that describes what the author thinks GPT actually is even means. For every setting there exists a task that it answers? Does that even make sense?