Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 334 posts

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#101

Post by pegasus »

palmotea wrote: post #94
matthewh806 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume that's what the parent post is trying to get at? Seeing if, given the cutting edge scientific knowledge of the day, the LLM is able to synthesis all it into a workable theory of QM by making the necessary connections and (quantum...) leaps Standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were

But that's not the OP's challenge, he said "if the model comes up with anything even remotely correct ." The point is there were things already "remotely correct" out there in 1900. If the LLM finds them, it wouldn't "be quite a strong evidence that LLMs are a path to something bigger."

It's not the comment which is illogical, it's your (mis)interpretation of it. What I (and seemingly others) took it to mean is basically could an LLM do Einstein's job? Could it weave together all those loose threads into a coherent new way of understanding the physical world? If so, AGI can't be far behind.

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#102

Post by opponent4 »

strbean wrote: post #86
opponent4 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd have to be specific what you mean by AGI Well, they obviously can't. AGI is not science, it's religion. It has all the trappings of religion: prophets, sacred texts, origin myth, end-of-days myth and most importantly, a means to escape death. Science? Well, the only measure to "general intelligence" would be to compare to the only one which is the human one but we have absolutely no means by which to describe…

> And no, the "brain is a computer" is not a scientific description, it's a metaphor. Disagree. A brain is turing complete, no? Isn't that the definition of a computer? Sure, it may be reductive to say "the brain is just a computer".

Not even close. Turing complete does not apply to the brain plain and simple. That's something to do with algorithms and your brain is not a computer as I have mentioned. It does not store information. It doesn't process information. It just doesn't work that way.

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati...

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#103

Post by bmacho »

scottlamb wrote: post #77
actionfromafar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but... we still might not know if it could do that because we were really close by 1900 or if the LLM is very smart.

What's the bar here? Does anyone say "we don't know if Einstein could do this because we were really close or because he was really smart?" I by no means believe LLMs are general intelligence, and I've seen them produce a lot of garbage, but if they could produce these revolutionary theories from only <= year 1900 information and a prompt that is not ridiculously leading, that would be a really compelling demonstrati…

> Does anyone say "we don't know if Einstein could do this because we were really close or because he was really smart?

Yes. It is certainly a question if Einstein is one of the smartest guy ever lived or all of his discoveries were already in the Zeitgeist, and would have been discovered by someone else in ~5 years.

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#104

Post by johnsmith1840 »

catigula wrote: post #71
metalliqaz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yann LeCun spoke explicitly on this idea recently and he asserts definitively that the LLM would not be able to add anything useful in that scenario. My understanding is that other AI researchers generally agree with him, and that it's mostly the hype beasts like Altman that think there is some "magic" in the weights that is actually intelligent. Their payday depends on it, so it is understandable. My opinion is that…

This is definitely wrong, most AI researchers DO NOT agree with LeCun. Most ML researchers think AGI is imminent.

The guy who built chatgpt literally said we're 20 years away?

Not sure how to interpret that as almost imminent.

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#106

Post by anonymous908213 »

strbean wrote: post #84
viccis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are models that predict tokens. They don't think, they don't build with blocks. They would never be able to synthesize knowledge about QM.

You realize parent said "This would be an interesting way to test proposition X" and you responded with "X is false because I say say", right?

"Proposition X" does not need testing. We already know X is categorically false because we know how LLMs are programmed, and not a single line of that programming pertains to thinking (thinking in the human sense, not "thinking" in the LLM sense which merely uses an anthromorphized analogy to describe a script that feeds back multiple prompts before getting the final prompt output to present to the user). In the same way that we can reason about the correctness of an IsEven program without writing a unit test that inputs every possible int32 to "prove" it, we can reason about the fundamental principles of an LLM's programming without coming up with ridiculous tests. In fact the proposed test itself is less eminently verifiable than reasoning about correctness; it could be easily corrupted by, for instance, incorrectly labelled data in the training dataset, which could only be determined by meticulously reviewing the entirety of the dataset.

The only people who are serious about suggesting that LLMs could possibly 'think' are the people who are committing fraud on the scale of hundreds of billions of dollars (good for them on finding the all-time grift!) and people who don't understand how they're programmed, and thusly are the target of the grift. Granted, given that the vast majority of humanity are not programmers, and even fewer are programmers educated on the intricacies of ML, the grift target pool numbers in the billions.

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#107

Post by rafram »

catigula wrote: post #71
metalliqaz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yann LeCun spoke explicitly on this idea recently and he asserts definitively that the LLM would not be able to add anything useful in that scenario. My understanding is that other AI researchers generally agree with him, and that it's mostly the hype beasts like Altman that think there is some "magic" in the weights that is actually intelligent. Their payday depends on it, so it is understandable. My opinion is that…

This is definitely wrong, most AI researchers DO NOT agree with LeCun. Most ML researchers think AGI is imminent.

The ones being paid a million dollars a year by OpenAI to say stuff like that, maybe.

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#108

Post by pvab3 »

addaon wrote: post #70

Suppose two models with similar parameters trained the same way on 1800-1875 and 1800-2025 data. Running both models, we get probability distributions across tokens, let's call the distributions 1875' and 2025'. We also get a probability distribution finite difference (2025' - 1875'). What would we get if we sampled from 1.1*(2025' - 1875') + 1875'? I don't think this would actually be a decent approximation of 2040'…

What if it's just genAlpha slang?

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#109

Post by gus_massa »

bazzargh wrote: post #31
dogma1138 wrote: post #2

Would be interesting to train a cutting edge model with a cut off date of say 1900 and then prompt it about QM and relativity with some added context. If the model comes up with anything even remotely correct it would be quite a strong evidence that LLMs are a path to something bigger if not then I think it is time to go back to the drawing board.

You would find things in there that were already close to QM and relativity. The Michelson-Morley experiment was 1887 and Lorentz transformations came along in 1889. The photoelectric effect (which Einstein explained in terms of photons in 1905) was also discovered in 1887. William Clifford (who _died_ in 1889) had notions that foreshadowed general relativity: "Riemann, and more specifically Clifford, conjectured tha…

I agree, but it's important to note that QM has no clear formulation until 2025/6, it's like 20 years more of work than SR.

Re: TimeCapsuleLLM: LLM trained only on data from 1800-1875

#110

Post by simonw »

throwaway18875 wrote: post #93
simonw wrote: post #4

Anyone seen a low-friction way to run prompts through this yet, either via a hosted API or chat UI or a convenient GGML or MLX build that runs in Ollama or llama.cpp or LM Studio?

Currently running it using LM Studio. It can download it from Hugging Face. It generates incoherent text though === You: I pray you, who is this Master Newton? timecapsulellm-v2-1800-1875-mlx: TI offer to pay you the very same fee as you did before. It was not in the power of your master to deliver the letter to your master. He did. I will be with you as soon as I can keep my word. It is not at all clear, whether the…

Thanks, looks like that's this one: https://huggingface.co/FractalSurfer/TimeCapsuleLLM-v2-1800-...

There's a "Use this model" button on that page that can launch it in LM Studio.

Post reply on HN