|
|
|
|
|
by Nevermark
1212 days ago
|
|
You are comparing systems that generated completion text based on statistics and correlation with a system that now models actual complex functional relationships between millions of concepts, not just series of letters or words. The difference is staggering. It comes about because of the insane level of computational iterations (that are not required for normal statistical completion) mapping vast numbers of terabytes of data into a set of parameters constrained to work together in a way (layers of alternating linear combinations followed by non-linear compressions) that requires functional relationships to be learned in order to compress the information enough to work. It is a profound difference both in methodology and results. |
|
I want to be clear that the successful scale-up of this training and inference methodology is nonetheless a massive achievement -- but it is inherently limited by the nature of its construction and is in no way indicative of a system that exudes agency or deliberative thought, nor one that "understands" or models the world as a human would.