71–80 of 183 posts
I think(?) you’ve already probably done a good job of explaining this criticism for semi-informed people. But can you dumb it down even more for those of us who are almost entirely out-of-the-loop? > Training on the eval puzzles is cheating / “training on test” > No this is false. “Training on test” specifically means training on the labels of test data. The labels were not trained on. > Also, ARC is a metalearning b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of ARC is essentially an "IQ Test" for AI systems. It is meant to cover abstract reasoning capabilities of generally-intelligent systems like LLMs. What the author did here was build a system that only solves ARC problems. The other tension is the fact that this score is on the public eval set. In machine learning, you typically have 3 datasets: training, evaluation, and test. The training set is the datase…
They have _not_ trained on the test set. On the private test set, the right way to evaluate this type of model, is giving i it the test question Q, which it will first train to AR predict first, and then it will inference using the just-updated weights with Q as prompt, giving you back A, and then you compare A with A_true secretly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, you have a bunch of Q,A pairs in the training dataset. Here, it was trained to next-word predict the question itself, as well as next-word predict the answer given the question as prompt. This is bog-standard, no one's complaining. In the test dataset's Q,A pairs, it was only trained to next-word predict the question itself, and it was not given the answer at all. It was then evaluated by seeing if it is a…
Further question—the model produces an answer to the question, it sends the answer, and then gets graded. Does it get to know immediately how it did, or does it get the grade back at the end after answering all the questions? If it is the former case, it would be possible to add the generated question/answer pair into the training set as well. Would that be considered fair? (Of course this is a moot point if the answ…
During test time, you have to submit all the answers at once and you get the total score (so you dont even know which puzzles were solved)
Hi! Author here. Surprised to see this on HN now. Happy to answer any questions! Some context about this: - This is NOT an LLM. its a small ar transformer trained from scratch. One of the points was that extremely complex problems can be tackled without LLMs - Till the v1 of this result, this benchmark was only scaled by LLMs or their finetunes (ofc w enormous training costs). Other attempts performed okayish but use…
First: this is really great technical writing, especially when you get into the rebuttals. Firm & clear without polemics -- props, and thanks for open-sourcing! That said; I don't have the time, energy, or anywhere near the expertise to challenge you on the DL specifics, but I feel compelled to add another voice to the chorus of doubters nonetheless. Using other ARC examples at runtime (effectively, yes?) for "transd…
To me, the frame problem is: Can you function in an open vs closed world, and to me the answer is yes, LLM's can definitely function in an open world where the rules are fuzzy, changing, undefined, etc. At the very least, much better than all GOFAI approaches by far.
The issue is now grounding - It can "function", but what would it take to "ground" them? A personality, maybe? Actual consequences? Making them interact only with constrained tools that are formally verified?
Right now it's a combination of harness engineering, and ml philosophers arguing about compression leading to the "objectively correct intelligence", whatever that means.
I think LLM's are "A[x]I" right now in the sense of "they have the capability to integrate with everything" - but obviously you can argue how much this actually reflects "A[x]I" (if you gave someone integration with everything, is that really your success or people handing you it)? But they are still missing some oomph factors that need to be clarified IMO. Maybe it's something as "mundane" as just having actual persistent memory, or maybe it's some deep philosophical thing like qualia. Who knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First: this is really great technical writing, especially when you get into the rebuttals. Firm & clear without polemics -- props, and thanks for open-sourcing! That said; I don't have the time, energy, or anywhere near the expertise to challenge you on the DL specifics, but I feel compelled to add another voice to the chorus of doubters nonetheless. Using other ARC examples at runtime (effectively, yes?) for "transd…
Kind of hijacking, would you say that LLM's have solved the frame problem? To me, the frame problem is: Can you function in an open vs closed world, and to me the answer is yes, LLM's can definitely function in an open world where the rules are fuzzy, changing, undefined, etc. At the very least, much better than all GOFAI approaches by far. The issue is now grounding - It can "function", but what would it take to "gr…
> yes, LLM's can definitely function in an open world where the rules are fuzzy, changing, undefined, etc.
> At the very least, much better than all GOFAI approaches by far
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was in India, where he describes the medical knowledge of providers as subpar at best.
Yeah but rhabdo is something literally any e.g. body builder, power lifter, etc could tell you about. Actually if somebody knows what hypertrophy is, they probably know what rhabdo is. It's a pretty normal and big concern in any sort of high intensity weight training. I can't think of many ways that otherwise healthy and fit younger people can physically nearly kill themselves doing normal activity, so it kind of sta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was in India, where he describes the medical knowledge of providers as subpar at best.
Yeah but rhabdo is something literally any e.g. body builder, power lifter, etc could tell you about. Actually if somebody knows what hypertrophy is, they probably know what rhabdo is. It's a pretty normal and big concern in any sort of high intensity weight training. I can't think of many ways that otherwise healthy and fit younger people can physically nearly kill themselves doing normal activity, so it kind of sta…
but on an average, not great
Also, a lot of gymgoers and physical trainers I know hadn't heard of rhabdo either (and this is a relatively wealthy part of a tier 1 city)
things are changing for the better however