|
|
|
|
|
|
by Mike_12345
1143 days ago
|
|
|
Everyone knows it has limitations. You have to work within the limitations of the model. No one has claimed that GPT is AGI. Doesn't mean it's incapable of any degree of reasoning. Yes the prompt actually matters. It was trained a specific way to solve specific tasks, and can generalize to solve tasks it has not seen before. Try this prompt: "Taking into account the r-value of adobe, I live in a location with heavy clay soil, and plan to build an adobe home. Will it be well-insulated?" These edge case "gotchas" are missing the point. |
|
|
The sort of logic systems that were the focus of a lot of AI work before "deep learning" came along would certainly have "taken the r-value of adobe" into account (had they been exposed to such knowledge). That's because they explicitly reason about things in the world that they are trained to reason about.
Gary Marcus has been quite usefully vocal about this. We used to try to build AI systems (some still are) based on the idea that you need a world model, and you need logic and inference and relationships.
LLMs have convinced, it seems, rather a lot of people that we can just discard all that - "the system will learn the patterns all by itself".
Marcus doesn't agree, and neither do I (not that my opinion is worth much).