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

LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 92 posts

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#21

Post by kelseyfrog »

ttpphd wrote: post #20
kelseyfrog wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, words mean whatever. See Saussure and Wittgenstein. To advance the claim that words are objective is to confuse the symbolic with the real. This is generally regarded by engineer-types as false, but societal taboos and power structures can be revealed by noting what speech provokes the strongest reactions.

"societal taboos and power structures can be revealed by noting what speech provokes the strongest reactions" Ok I'll bite. Who is the marginalized Other?

It's taboo to believe that LLMs can reason. People who believe this are systematically de-legitimized and framed as being out of or at least out of touch with reality.

This will appear as common sense or naturally true if you're inside the LLMs-cant-reason ideology.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#22

Post by dantheman252 »

matthest wrote: post #9
dantheman252 wrote: post #2

Danny here, one of the authors of this paper. If anyone has any questions or anything feel free to AMA!

Assuming LLMs eventually get really really good at this. Do you see this destroying prediction-based markets (i.e. the stock market and Polymarket)? Markets exist because there's uncertainty about the future. If LLMs can predict with extremely high accuracy, would there no longer be a need for markets?

I don't forsee this destroying prediction-based markets in the near-term. It might make them more efficient, but you could have different LLMs competing in the same way humans do now. Its also interesting how this could create markets for more things that aren't considered on as much now because they are too difficult to estimate. At the end of the day though, LLMs are limited by the information provided to them.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#23

Post by dantheman252 »

unrahul wrote: post #5
dantheman252 wrote: post #2

Danny here, one of the authors of this paper. If anyone has any questions or anything feel free to AMA!

Hey Danny, Really nice read. Do you plan to share the source code to see if we could replicate this?

We are currently focused on our plans for the next phase of this but cleaning things up and open sourcing is something we could consider in the future!

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#24

Post by nadermx »

baq wrote: post #17
nadermx wrote: post #11

My thermometer for prediction models is the day they can predict the weather so there is never any unknown about the forcast. Is when I'll begin to believe its hot out when they tell me.

At least you won’t be moving your goalposts anytime soon, if ever

I'd almost say there is more of an incentive to be able to predict a hurrican or tornado

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#25

Post by ttpphd »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #21
ttpphd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"societal taboos and power structures can be revealed by noting what speech provokes the strongest reactions" Ok I'll bite. Who is the marginalized Other?

It's taboo to believe that LLMs can reason. People who believe this are systematically de-legitimized and framed as being out of or at least out of touch with reality. This will appear as common sense or naturally true if you're inside the LLMs-cant-reason ideology.

It's absolutely not taboo to believe that. It's a very common belief.

Lot of game playing going on here to center on a victim narrative.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#27

Post by ImHereToVote »

batty_alex wrote: post #10
kelseyfrog wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can call it blorbblorb if it makes you feel better. Reasoning is a social construct which, for many people, is grounded in humanity. Others ground it using other socially transmitted ontologies. We don't usually discuss how people choose to ground their ontological beliefs, but why not? Why did you choose to ground "reasoning" in the way you do? If you didn't choose, why not?

But, according to the paper, that's not what's happening It's examining published news / research / whatever (input), making statistical predictions, and then comparing (playing) it against other predictions to fine-tune the result

Kinda what convolution in animal brains detects outlines of moving objects. It's statistics all the way down.
Post reply on HN