|
|
|
|
|
|
by ftxbro
1154 days ago
|
|
|
> Second is that we won’t be training AI to be like humans, but like humans + AI. LLMs weren't training AI to be like humans. They were training AI to be able to predict what humans (and other sources of common crawl data) will write next in their texts. This might seem like a small difference but it's not. Consider for example someone whose career is to research ant behavior. Their job in some sense is to be able to predict what an ant will do. Does this mean that in the course of their academic training and scientific research, this researcher is being trained to be like an ant? |
|
|
If they act out these predictions and are rewarded based on their accuracy, then yes. They're being trained to be like ants. Not entirely like ants in every way, but like them in specific ways.
There's a big difference with your analogy. Predicting tokens is essentially the same as generating tokens. There's no meaningful objective difference between the activities (I'm ignoring philosophy and focusing on observables). They both lead to a stream of tokens.
For contrast, consider any sport, maybe baseball. I could predict the winner of a game but not be able to win it myself. I could predict the next pitch but not be able throw it or hit it. There's an execution aspect you can fail at. Being like an ant would also have this aspect. Token prediction doesn't have this, or if it does (maybe turning a vector into an API response?) it's a trivial part of the whole problem.
Maybe I'd be more clear to say "write like humans" instead of "be like humans", though.