291–300 of 652 posts
I would ask for exercises and practices attached to the course that one could do to penetrate the BS - this would be invaluable as we increasingly get bombarded by ai-generated media. Indeed what is learning and education except critical thinking skills ? An un-intended consequence of LLMs is that they have triggered this conversation.
(while I work at OAI, the opinion below is strictly my own) I feel like the current version is fairly hazardous to students and might leave them worse off. If I offer help to nontechnical friends, I focus on: - look at rate of change, not current point - reliability substantially lags possibility, by maybe two years. - adversarial settings remain largely unsolved if you get enough shots, trends there are unclear - ig…
Not sure why everyone rates this. It’s full of very confidently made statements like “the AI has no ground truth” (obviously it does, it has ingested every paper ever), it “can’t reason logically” which seems like a stretch if you ever read the CoT of a frontier reasoning model and “can’t explain how they arrived at conclusions” where - I mean just try it yourself with o1, go as deep as you like asking how it arrived…
btw, typo in lesson 11: "(2) understand how an LMM can help them" .. instead of LLM
IMO, "understanding" is the notion most endangered and the one which loss is with most catastrophic consequences, from all the possibly affected ones. It has never been very favored, but now is even worse than ever - it is thinned and abandoned en-masse.
Check brothers Strugatsky's Snail_on_the_Slope [0] , there's very stringent monologue of Peretz on the topic, ~~ page 11 [1]
Not sure why everyone rates this. It’s full of very confidently made statements like “the AI has no ground truth” (obviously it does, it has ingested every paper ever), it “can’t reason logically” which seems like a stretch if you ever read the CoT of a frontier reasoning model and “can’t explain how they arrived at conclusions” where - I mean just try it yourself with o1, go as deep as you like asking how it arrived…
Do you have a citation for such a claim?
Not sure why everyone rates this. It’s full of very confidently made statements like “the AI has no ground truth” (obviously it does, it has ingested every paper ever), it “can’t reason logically” which seems like a stretch if you ever read the CoT of a frontier reasoning model and “can’t explain how they arrived at conclusions” where - I mean just try it yourself with o1, go as deep as you like asking how it arrived…
the machine is fooling you with a mimicry of reasoning. and you are falling for it.
fortunately unfortunately, people who know llm's shill bullshit are the ones selling llm's while they wouldn't feed llm's to their kids or eat llm's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the machine is fooling you with a mimicry of reasoning. and you are falling for it.
What is reasoning if not a chain of logically consistent thoughts?
ie, that logically consistent thinking starts from symbolization, axioms, proof procedures, world models. otherwise, you end up with persuasive words.
(while I work at OAI, the opinion below is strictly my own) I feel like the current version is fairly hazardous to students and might leave them worse off. If I offer help to nontechnical friends, I focus on: - look at rate of change, not current point - reliability substantially lags possibility, by maybe two years. - adversarial settings remain largely unsolved if you get enough shots, trends there are unclear - ig…