11–20 of 139 posts
Our brains can also simulate turing machines, slowly. We automated that with computers that are faster and more reliable. So why not allow a model to use external much faster and reliable tools, just as we do?
This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. > This works, but the actual execution happened outside the model. The model specified the computation, then waited for an external system to carry it out. > Our transformer also emits a program, but instead of pausing for an external tool, it executes that program itself, step by step, within the sa…
Not really sure what this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated is but it's poor form. If you have something to say about the text then say it. Otherwise leave baseless accusations out of it.
>What's the benefit? Is it speed? Where are the benchmarks? Is it that you can backprop through this computation? Do you do so?....
It's pretty clearly an ideological thing. Some people are firmly on the 'some sort of symbolic logic is necessary' camp. From the article, 'A system that cannot compute cannot truly internalize what computation is.'
Some things are just interesting for the sake of it. This is one of those things. I don't agree with the authors on the above and I'm still glad they shared. It's a very interesting read regardless.
This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. > This works, but the actual execution happened outside the model. The model specified the computation, then waited for an external system to carry it out. > Our transformer also emits a program, but instead of pausing for an external tool, it executes that program itself, step by step, within the sa…
This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. > This works, but the actual execution happened outside the model. The model specified the computation, then waited for an external system to carry it out. > Our transformer also emits a program, but instead of pausing for an external tool, it executes that program itself, step by step, within the sa…
>This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. Not really sure what this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated is but it's poor form. If you have something to say about the text then say it. Otherwise leave baseless accusations out of it. >What's the benefit? Is it speed? Where are the benchmarks? Is it that you can backprop…
The idea itself was very cool, so I endured it. But it was not a pleasant read.
Both examples are of a system we created to abstract most of the hard work.
I think a more important concept here is that the term "AI" has a lot of built-in assumptions, one of which being that it is (or will be) super intelligent, and so folks like the author here think (correctly) that it's important for the AI to be actually doing the work itself.
This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. > This works, but the actual execution happened outside the model. The model specified the computation, then waited for an external system to carry it out. > Our transformer also emits a program, but instead of pausing for an external tool, it executes that program itself, step by step, within the sa…
>This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. Not really sure what this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated is but it's poor form. If you have something to say about the text then say it. Otherwise leave baseless accusations out of it. >What's the benefit? Is it speed? Where are the benchmarks? Is it that you can backprop…
I could point out the individual phrases and describe the overall impression in detail, or I can just compactly communicate that by using the phrase "AI". If it bothers you, read it as "AI-like", so there is a pretension.
I have no problem with using AI for writing. I do it too, especially for documentation. But you need to read it and iterate with it and give it enough raw input context. If you don't give it info about your actual goals, intentions, judgments etc, the AI will substitute some washed-out, averaged-out no-meat-on-the-bone fluff that may sound good at first read and give you a warm wow-effect that makes you hit publish, but you read into it all the context that you have in your head, but readers don't have that.
Formatting and language is cheap now. We need a new culture around calling out sloppy work. You would not have had a problem with calling out a badly composed rambling article 5 years ago. But today you can easily slap an AI filter on it that will make it look grammatical and feel narratively engaging, now it's all about deeper content. But if one points that out, replies can always say "oh, you can't prove that, can you?"
What could you do with an LLM that can go into “focus mode” and generate tokens extremely rapidly? How much more powerful would a reasoning-token-generation phase be that can explore and cull large numbers of paths/hypotheses, so long as they are well defined? Does this have implications for multi-modal models and spatial reasoning?
As the paper suggests:
> These models could be useful in several modes: as a dedicated fast path paired with a slower, more general model; as part of a fast/slow hybrid architecture inside a single system; or as a speculative execution model that proposes tokens quickly while a regular-attention model verifies and accepts them. Regardless of their eventual capability ceiling, they already suggest a powerful systems primitive for speeding up larger models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. Not really sure what this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated is but it's poor form. If you have something to say about the text then say it. Otherwise leave baseless accusations out of it. >What's the benefit? Is it speed? Where are the benchmarks? Is it that you can backprop…
> If you have something to say about the text then say it. I could point out the individual phrases and describe the overall impression in detail, or I can just compactly communicate that by using the phrase "AI". If it bothers you, read it as "AI-like", so there is a pretension. I have no problem with using AI for writing. I do it too, especially for documentation. But you need to read it and iterate with it and giv…
I just find phrases like this a bit obnoxious at times.
>You would not have had a problem with calling out a badly composed rambling article 5 years ago.
Then why not just say that? It's rambling bla bla bla. What's so hard about that? Why invent a reason for issues, as if rambling articles didn't get written 5 years ago.
Like No, being written by an LLM or not is not the reason the article has no benchmarks or interpretability results. Those things would be there regardless if the author was interested in that, so again, it just seems there's little point in making such assertions.
This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. > This works, but the actual execution happened outside the model. The model specified the computation, then waited for an external system to carry it out. > Our transformer also emits a program, but instead of pausing for an external tool, it executes that program itself, step by step, within the sa…
>This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project. I see the eloquent sentences, but don't get the message. Not really sure what this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated is but it's poor form. If you have something to say about the text then say it. Otherwise leave baseless accusations out of it. >What's the benefit? Is it speed? Where are the benchmarks? Is it that you can backprop…
As to why people call this out without going into great detail about the problems with the actual text, it's because this is happening all over the place and it's very disrespectful to readers, who dig into an article that looks very well written on the surface, only to discover it's a lot of labor to decode and often (but not always) a total waste of time. Asking for a critical report of the text is asking even more of a reader who already feels duped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you have something to say about the text then say it. I could point out the individual phrases and describe the overall impression in detail, or I can just compactly communicate that by using the phrase "AI". If it bothers you, read it as "AI-like", so there is a pretension. I have no problem with using AI for writing. I do it too, especially for documentation. But you need to read it and iterate with it and giv…
>"This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project." I just find phrases like this a bit obnoxious at times. >You would not have had a problem with calling out a badly composed rambling article 5 years ago. Then why not just say that? It's rambling bla bla bla. What's so hard about that? Why invent a reason for issues, as if rambling articles didn't get written 5 years ago. Like No, being written by an LL…
But anyway, yes, I can also just move on to the next article. Most of the time I indeed do that.