Live data from Hacker News

Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

antirez.com

21–30 of 222 posts

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#21

I love the title "Big LLMs" because it means that we are now making a distinction between big LLMs and minute LLMs and maybe medium LLMs. I'd like to propose the we call them "Tall LLMs", "Grande LLMs", and "Venti LLMs" just to be precise.

can we have tiny LLM that can run on smartphone now

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#22

I love the title "Big LLMs" because it means that we are now making a distinction between big LLMs and minute LLMs and maybe medium LLMs. I'd like to propose the we call them "Tall LLMs", "Grande LLMs", and "Venti LLMs" just to be precise.

can we have tiny LLM that can run on smartphone now

Apple Intelligence has an LLM that runs locally on the iPhone (15 Pro and up).

But the quality of Apple Intelligence shows us what happens when you use a tiny ultra-low-wattage LLM. There’s a whole subreddit dedicated to its notable fails: https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleIntelligenceFail/top/?t=all

One example of this is “Sorry I was very drunk and went home and crashed straight into bed” being summarized by Apple Intelligence as ”Drunk and crashed”.

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#23

I love the title "Big LLMs" because it means that we are now making a distinction between big LLMs and minute LLMs and maybe medium LLMs. I'd like to propose the we call them "Tall LLMs", "Grande LLMs", and "Venti LLMs" just to be precise.

Big LLM is too long as a name. We should agree on calling them BLLMs. Surely everyone is going to remember what the letters stand for.

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#24
post #2

That's really what these are: something analogous to JPEG for language, and queryable in natural language. Tangent: I was thinking the other day: these are not AI in the sense that they are not primarily intelligence . I still don't see much evidence of that. What they do give me is superhuman memory. The main thing I use them for is search, research, and a "rubber duck" that talks back, and it's like having an inter…

>like having an intern who has memorized the library and the entire Internet. They occasionally hallucinate or make mistakes

Correction: you occasionally notice when they hallucinate or make mistakes.

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#25

I love the title "Big LLMs" because it means that we are now making a distinction between big LLMs and minute LLMs and maybe medium LLMs. I'd like to propose the we call them "Tall LLMs", "Grande LLMs", and "Venti LLMs" just to be precise.

Why not LLLM for large LLM’s and SLLM for small LLM’s, assuming there is no middle ground

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#26

I love the title "Big LLMs" because it means that we are now making a distinction between big LLMs and minute LLMs and maybe medium LLMs. I'd like to propose the we call them "Tall LLMs", "Grande LLMs", and "Venti LLMs" just to be precise.

can we have tiny LLM that can run on smartphone now

I want a tiny_phone_based LLM to do thought tracking and comms awareness..

I actually applied to YC in like ~2014 or such for thus;

-JotPlot - I wanted a timeline for basically giving a histo timeline of comms btwn me and others - such that I had a sankey-ish diagram for when and whom and via method I spoke with folks and then each node eas the message, call, text, meta links...

I think its still viable - but my thought process is too currently chaotic to pull it off.

Basically looking at a timeline of your comms and thoughts and expand into links of thought - now with LLMs you could have a Throw Tag od some sort whereby you have the bot do work on research expanding on certain things and plugging up a site for that Idea on LOCAL HOST (i.e. your phone so that you can pull up data relevant to the convo - and its all in a timeline of thought/stream of conscious

hopefully you can visualize it...

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#27
post #4
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe LLMs are both data and processing, but even humans reasoning is based in strong ways on existing knowledge. However, for the goal of the post, indeed it is the memorization that is the key value, and the fact that likely in the future sampling such models can be used to transfer the same knowledge to bigger LLMs, even if the source data is lost.

I'm not saying there is no latent reasoning capability. It's there. It just seems to be that the memory and lookup component is much more useful and powerful. To me intelligence describes something much more capable than what I see in these things, even the bleeding edge ones. At least so far .

That's the problem with the term "intelligence". Everyone has their own definition, we don't even know what makes us humans intelligent and more often than not it's a moving goalpost as these models get better.

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#28
post #2

That's really what these are: something analogous to JPEG for language, and queryable in natural language. Tangent: I was thinking the other day: these are not AI in the sense that they are not primarily intelligence . I still don't see much evidence of that. What they do give me is superhuman memory. The main thing I use them for is search, research, and a "rubber duck" that talks back, and it's like having an inter…

I've been looking at it as an "instant reddit comment". I can download a 10G or 80G compressed archive that basically contains the useful parts of the internet, and then I all can use it to synthesize something that is about as good and reliable as a really good reddit comment. Which is nifty. But honestly it's an incredible idea to sell that to businesses.

And so what would the point be of anyone actually posting on the internet if no one actually visits the sites because large corps have essentially stolen and monetized the whole thing.

And I'm sure they have or will have the ability to influence the responses so you only see what they want you to see.

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#29
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been looking at it as an "instant reddit comment". I can download a 10G or 80G compressed archive that basically contains the useful parts of the internet, and then I all can use it to synthesize something that is about as good and reliable as a really good reddit comment. Which is nifty. But honestly it's an incredible idea to sell that to businesses.

And so what would the point be of anyone actually posting on the internet if no one actually visits the sites because large corps have essentially stolen and monetized the whole thing. And I'm sure they have or will have the ability to influence the responses so you only see what they want you to see.

That's the next step after algorithmic content feeds - algorithmic/generated comment sections. Imagine seeing an entirely different conversation happening just to get you to buy a product. A product like Coca-Cola.

Imagine scrolling through a comment section that feels tailor-made to your tastes, seamlessly guiding you to an ice-cold Coca-Cola. You see people reminiscing about their best summer memories—each one featuring a Coke in hand. Others are debating the superior refreshment of Coke over other drinks, complete with "real" testimonials and nostalgic stories.

And just when you're feeling thirsty, a perfectly timed comment appears: "Nothing beats the crisp, refreshing taste of an ice-cold Coke on a hot day."

Algorithmic engagement isn’t just the future—it’s already here, and it’s making sure the next thing you crave is Coca-Cola. Open Happiness.

Re: Big LLMs weights are a piece of history

#30
post #2

That's really what these are: something analogous to JPEG for language, and queryable in natural language. Tangent: I was thinking the other day: these are not AI in the sense that they are not primarily intelligence . I still don't see much evidence of that. What they do give me is superhuman memory. The main thing I use them for is search, research, and a "rubber duck" that talks back, and it's like having an inter…

I regularly pushback against casual uses of the word “intelligence”.

First, there is no objective dividing line. It is a matter of degree relative to something else. Any language that suggests otherwise should be refined or ejected from our culture and language. Language’s evolution doesn’t have to be a nosedive.

Second, there are many definitions of intelligence; some are more useful than others. Along with many, I like Stuart Russell’s definition: the degree to which an agent can accomplish a task. This definition requires being clear about the agent and the task. I mention this so often I feel like a permalink is needed. It isn’t “my” idea at all; it is simply the result of smart people decomplecting the idea so we’re not mired in needless confusion.

I rant about word meanings often because deep thinking people need to lay claim to words and shape culture accordingly. I say this often: don’t cede the battle of meaning to the least common denominators of apathy, ignorance, confusion, or marketing.

Some might call this kind of thinking elitist. No. This is what taking responsibility looks like. We could never have built modern science (or most rigorous fields of knowledge) with imprecise thinking.

I’m so done with sloppy mainstream phrasing of “intelligence”. Shit is getting real (so to speak), companies are changing the world, governments are racing to stay in the game, jobs will be created and lost, and humanity might transcend, improve, stagnate, or die.

If humans, meanwhile, can’t be bothered to talk about intelligence in a meaningful way, then, frankly, I think we’re … abdicating responsibility, tempting fate, or asking to be in the next Mike Judge movie.

Post reply on HN