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

LLMs can see and hear without any training

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: LLMs can see and hear without any training

#61

Post by byteknight »

quantadev wrote: post #59
jorvi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> zero shot I really wish we would find a different term for this. Doing something always takes at least one attempt, i.e. "one shotting". "Zero shotting" is an oxymoron, which makes it a term that only creates more confusion rather than succinctly conveying something.

My favorite AI term to ridicule is the recent "Test Time Compute" nonsense, which has nothing whatsoever to do with testing. It literally just means "inference time". And if I hear someone say "banger", "cooking", "insane", or "crazy", one more time I'm going to sledge hammer my computer. Can't someone, under 40 please pick up a book and read. Yesterday Sam Altman tried to coin "Skillsmaxxing" in a tweet. I threw my…

Get off my lawn is alive and well it seems

Re: LLMs can see and hear without any training

#62

Post by jorvi »

vessenes wrote: post #48
jorvi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> zero shot I really wish we would find a different term for this. Doing something always takes at least one attempt, i.e. "one shotting". "Zero shotting" is an oxymoron, which makes it a term that only creates more confusion rather than succinctly conveying something.

I think of a shot as an example, not a try: “One shot” is “One example”. Zero shot is “Zero examples”. I don’t love it, but I don’t hate it, got a better word for it?

We already have a term for it in people, "intuited". When you are asked to intuit something, it usually implies an unfamiliarity with the subject matter.

There is such entrenchment with terms though, it'll never get shifted to that.. and on top of that, it doesn't sound as interesting and dynamic as "zero shotting".

Re: LLMs can see and hear without any training

#66

Post by numeri »

quantadev wrote: post #59
jorvi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> zero shot I really wish we would find a different term for this. Doing something always takes at least one attempt, i.e. "one shotting". "Zero shotting" is an oxymoron, which makes it a term that only creates more confusion rather than succinctly conveying something.

My favorite AI term to ridicule is the recent "Test Time Compute" nonsense, which has nothing whatsoever to do with testing. It literally just means "inference time". And if I hear someone say "banger", "cooking", "insane", or "crazy", one more time I'm going to sledge hammer my computer. Can't someone, under 40 please pick up a book and read. Yesterday Sam Altman tried to coin "Skillsmaxxing" in a tweet. I threw my…

It makes quite a lot of sense juxtaposed with "train time compute". The point being made is that a set budget can be split between paying for more training or more inference _at test time_ or rather _at the time of testing_ the model. The word "time" in "inference time" plays a slightly different role grammatically (noun, not part of an adverbial phrase), but comes out to mean the same thing.

Re: LLMs can see and hear without any training

#67

Post by quantadev »

byteknight wrote: post #61
quantadev wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite AI term to ridicule is the recent "Test Time Compute" nonsense, which has nothing whatsoever to do with testing. It literally just means "inference time". And if I hear someone say "banger", "cooking", "insane", or "crazy", one more time I'm going to sledge hammer my computer. Can't someone, under 40 please pick up a book and read. Yesterday Sam Altman tried to coin "Skillsmaxxing" in a tweet. I threw my…

Get off my lawn is alive and well it seems

Speaking of worn out tropes, you just used the most common one of all. I'm sure it was a tough call for you to decide between that and a "boomer" quip.

Re: LLMs can see and hear without any training

#68

Post by quantadev »

numeri wrote: post #66
quantadev wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite AI term to ridicule is the recent "Test Time Compute" nonsense, which has nothing whatsoever to do with testing. It literally just means "inference time". And if I hear someone say "banger", "cooking", "insane", or "crazy", one more time I'm going to sledge hammer my computer. Can't someone, under 40 please pick up a book and read. Yesterday Sam Altman tried to coin "Skillsmaxxing" in a tweet. I threw my…

It makes quite a lot of sense juxtaposed with "train time compute". The point being made is that a set budget can be split between paying for more training or more inference _at test time_ or rather _at the time of testing_ the model. The word "time" in "inference time" plays a slightly different role grammatically (noun, not part of an adverbial phrase), but comes out to mean the same thing.

Exactly right. The term "Test Time" had relevance in a certain context, and in a certain paper, but once people read the paper and saw the term they latched onto it, not realizing how totally non-descriptive and nonsensical it was when used outside that specific narrow context of genuinely "testing".

Re: LLMs can see and hear without any training

#69

Post by quantadev »

ks2048 wrote: post #60
quantadev wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite AI term to ridicule is the recent "Test Time Compute" nonsense, which has nothing whatsoever to do with testing. It literally just means "inference time". And if I hear someone say "banger", "cooking", "insane", or "crazy", one more time I'm going to sledge hammer my computer. Can't someone, under 40 please pick up a book and read. Yesterday Sam Altman tried to coin "Skillsmaxxing" in a tweet. I threw my…

Speaking of old-timers and "inference time" - there was a time when "inference" meant inferring parameters from data (i.e. training). And now it means "test-time". (or maybe the difference is if it's statistics community vs ML community). e.g. Bishop's textbook says: 5.2.4 Inference and decision We have broken the classification problem down into two separate stages, the inference stage in which we use training data…

I almost mentioned "inference" too, as an unfortunate word that stuck in a bad way, but it's tolerable since we can now just [falsely] claim that the AI is "inferring" what a prompt "means" in order to answer it.

And speaking of word definitions: "Old Timer" is anyone with a decade more experience than you.

Post reply on HN