551–560 of 723 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem with nondeterministic generative stuff: sometimes it get things right, and sometimes it doesn't and you cannot rely on any behavior.
Kind of like humans?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they aren't. Some jobs are being scaled down because of the increased productivity of other people with AI, but none of the jobs you listed are within reach of autonomous AI work with today's technology (as illustrated by the AirCanada hilarious case).
I would split the difference and say a bunch of companies are /trying/ to replace workers with LLMs but are finding out, usually with hilarious results, that they are not reliable enough to be left on their own. However, there are some boosts that can be made to augment the performance of other workers if they are used carefully and with attention to detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? People also produce somewhat random outputs, so?
A lot of things are going to look the same when you aren't wearing your glasses. You don't even appear to be trying to describe these things in a realistic fashion. There is nothing of substance in this argument.
Opus (and all prior Claude models) still do not correctly answer the Sally question, unfortunately: Q: Sally (a girl) has 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. How many sisters does Sally have? A: Okay, let's organize the information we have: Sally is a girl. Sally has 3 brothers. Each of Sally's brothers has 2 sisters. Now, let's think about this step by step: We know that Sally is a girl, so she is a sister to he…
This is what my local LLama 13B Q5 had to say on this: > There are two ways to approach this problem. First, we can count each person by gender and then add them up. Second, we can use the given information about the siblings and their genders to find a quicker solution. > Let's go with the second method: > 1. Sally has one sister (herself). > 2. Each brother has two sisters. So, there are 3 sisters for each of her b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I doubt all the AI hype. These things are supposed to have PhD level smarts, but the above example can't reason about the problem well at all. There's a difference between PhD level information and advanced reasoning , and I'm not sure how many people can tell the difference (I'm no expert). In an adjacent area - autonomous driving - I know that lane following is f**ing easy, but lane identification and o…
LLMs are intuitive computing algorithms, which means they only mimic the subconscious faculties of our brain. You’re referencing the need for careful systematic logical self-aware thinking, which is a great point! You’re absolutely right that LLMs can only loosely approximate it on their own, and not that well. Luckily, we figured out how to write programs to mimic that part of the brain in the 70s ;)
What’s this in reference to?
Just played around with Opus. I'm starting to wonder if benchmarks are deviating from real world performance systematically - it doesn't seem actually better than GPT-4, slightly worse if anything. Basic calculus/physics questions were worse off (it ignored my stating deceleration is proportional to velocity and just assumed constant). A traffic simulation I've been using (understanding traffic light and railroad saf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like it is getting tripped up on grammar. Do these models not deterministically preparse text input into a logical notation?
There's no preprocessing being done. This is pure computation, from the tokens to the outputs. I was quite amazed that during 2014-2016, what was being done with dependency parsers, part-of-speech taggers, named entity recognizers, with very sophisticated methods (graphical models, regret minimizing policy learners, etc.) became fully obsolete for natural language processing. There was this period of sprinkling some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of things are going to look the same when you aren't wearing your glasses. You don't even appear to be trying to describe these things in a realistic fashion. There is nothing of substance in this argument.
Look, let's say you have a black box that outputs one character at a time in a semi-random way and you don't know if there's a person sitting inside or if it's an LLM. How can you decide if it's intelligent or not?
Claude.ai web version is beyond useless, it is an actual scam. Like straight up it is not ethical for them to treat their web client as a product they are allowed to charge money for, the filters will actually refuse to do anything . You pay for increased messages and whatever but all you get is "I apologize..." and treats you as if you were about to commit mass genocide with calling 21+ year old individuals minors a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, let's say you have a black box that outputs one character at a time in a semi-random way and you don't know if there's a person sitting inside or if it's an LLM. How can you decide if it's intelligent or not?
I appreciate the philosophical direction you're trying to take this conversation, but I just don't find discussing the core subject matter in such an overly generalized manner to be stimulating.