|
|
|
|
|
by O__________O
1214 days ago
|
|
For clarity, humans only have “one session” so if you’re being fair, you would not compare it’s multi-session capabilities since humans aren’t able to have multiple sessions. Phenomena related to integrating new information is commonly referred to as online vs offline learning, which is largely tied to time scale, since if you fast forward time enough, it becomes irrelevant. Exception being when time between observation of phenomena and interpretation of it requires a quicker response time relative to the phenomena or response times of others.Lastly, this is a known issue, one that is active area of research and likely to exceed human level response times in near future. Also false that when presented with finite inline set of information that at scale humans comprehension exceeds state of the art LLMs. Basically, only significant issues are those which AI will not be able to overcome, and as is, not aware of any significant issues with related proofs of such. |
|
Once again you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. If we're talking about short term or working memory then humans certainly have multiple "sessions" since the information is not usually held on to. It's my understanding that these models also have a limit to the number of tokens that can be present in both the prompt and response. Sounds a lot more like working memory than human like learning. You seem fairly well convinced that these models are identical or superior to what the human brain is doing. If that's true I'd like to see the rationale behind it.