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

How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

finbarr.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 238 posts

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#91

Post by ggm »

circuit10 wrote: post #32
ggm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony in your statement is immense. Yes, Kurzeweil has been saying this for decades. No it doesn't mean AGI is close. These llms do nothing to advance AGI. There is no theoretical basis to the belief in emergent intelligence from statistical language models and the answers are amazingly good, highly unreliable and parrot meaning at best. There is no inductance, and no inteospection and no understanding of the dee…

By most measures you could think of for intelligence languages models are improving, so I don’t see why you think this wouldn’t lead to something at least almost human-level if you scaled it up enough Of course there could be some wall somewhere but I don’t see why there would be

That's "we need a larger cowbell" thinking. It's not a theory of mind, it's wishful thinking that it will.. emerge. Absent theory I don't think moar will make it emerge, no.

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#92

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

zarzavat wrote: post #66
shrimpx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI should have morals, opinions, self-reflection, learn continuously from sensor data, reason, realize when they’re proven wrong and update their model of the world, and be creative. So far LLMs exhibit none of those. But LLMs exhibit a digestible distillation of a very large body of data which may be a component of an AGI. But you can have an AGI that doesn’t have encyclopedic knowledge but it’s still highly intell…

That is not what AGI means. AGI = Artificial General Intelligence. 1. Artificial = we made it 2. General = it can solve problems in any field 3. Intelligence = the ability to solve problems A chess engine is a very strong Artificial Intelligence . But it’s not very General , it can only evaluate chess positions. GPT-4 is very General , you can ask it about any question and get a somewhat reasonable answer. But it’s n…

GPT-4 solves only 1 problem: what is the most likely stream of tokens to follow what we already have.

It is remarkably good at this. But there's absolutely zero reason to believe it can solve any other problem at all.

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#93

Post by ggm »

zarzavat wrote: post #66
shrimpx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI should have morals, opinions, self-reflection, learn continuously from sensor data, reason, realize when they’re proven wrong and update their model of the world, and be creative. So far LLMs exhibit none of those. But LLMs exhibit a digestible distillation of a very large body of data which may be a component of an AGI. But you can have an AGI that doesn’t have encyclopedic knowledge but it’s still highly intell…

That is not what AGI means. AGI = Artificial General Intelligence. 1. Artificial = we made it 2. General = it can solve problems in any field 3. Intelligence = the ability to solve problems A chess engine is a very strong Artificial Intelligence . But it’s not very General , it can only evaluate chess positions. GPT-4 is very General , you can ask it about any question and get a somewhat reasonable answer. But it’s n…

We don't have a good computer model of dolphin intelligence and the llms are not even remotely close to consciousness or dolphins, dogs, parrots on the intelligence Front.

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#94

Post by goatlover »

Waterluvian wrote: post #18
goatlover wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don't. You're "just" doing what everyone else in the past has done with the brain/human intelligence and using the latest technology as a metaphor without realizing it.

We want to think we’re exceptional but all we can do is say “human consciousness is special” without having any way of measuring it or disproving the assertion that we’re just really fancy pattern matchers. Take any metaphor you want, it’s the same outcome: we may all be philosophical zombies.

I’m conscious, maybe you’re not? Not that I really believe that. I think you probably see colors and hear sounds, even in your dreams! But engineering types tend to be persuaded by a particular view of the world, failing to understand that it is a view and not nature itself.

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#95

Post by Joe_Boogz »

notuseful wrote: post #78
redox99 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find content like this on Twitter if you follow the right people. In fact I read this article before it was even posted here because @karpathy tweeted about it.

[flagged]

Shameful? Just because you dislike it doesn’t mean everyone has to.

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#97

Post by mr_toad »

cj wrote: post #84
version_five wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to see examples like "here's a prompt against a model and the same prompt against a quantized version of that model, see how they differ." We suck at evaluating and comparing models imo. There are metrics and evaluation task, but it's still very subjective. The closer we get to assessing human like performance, the tougher it is, because it becomes more subjective and less deterministic by the nature of the ta…

> some specific thing you might want to do with the model. I think this right here is the answer to measuring and comparing model performance. Instead of trying to compare models holistically, we should be comparing them for specific problem sets and use cases... the same as we compare humans against one another. Using people as an example, a hiring manager doesn't compare 2 people holistically, they compare 2 people…

You could have two models answer 100 questions the same way, and differ on the 101st. They’re unpredictable by nature - if we could accurately predict them we’d just use the predictions instead.

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#98

Post by mlboss »

not2b wrote: post #17
Waterluvian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans just do spicy autocomplete too.

No, a human isn't born with a set of knowledge like a freshly trained LLM, keeping the model fixed and responding to input. The analog to the model changes based on the human's experience. Just making bigger and bigger LLMs won't give you this.

Humans are born with millions of years of evolutionary training embedded in their dna and brain. We are not born with nothing.

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#99

Post by PKop »

notuseful wrote: post #78
redox99 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find content like this on Twitter if you follow the right people. In fact I read this article before it was even posted here because @karpathy tweeted about it.

[flagged]

Says you. I'd prefer to take advantage of the resources available there. Your silly moralism is easy to ignore

Re: How Is LLaMa.cpp Possible?

#100

Post by dTal »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #89
Waterluvian wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a human is different because it keeps training its neural network?

one reason why a human is different: just based on word count alone, most LLM's are trained on 3-5 orders of magnitude more input. could be a difference that makes no difference, or ...

Bit of an unfair comparison when humans also have a bunch of senses that LLMs don't have. They might be trained on orders of magnitude more words, but more data? Doubtful.
Post reply on HN