| >That's repeated a lot but it's not entirely accurate. No one can explain how an LLM gives the answers it does (not even the LLM). Uh I literally said no one fully understands these networks. And you go on to say that my statement isn't accurate then confirm my statement by saying: >No one can explain how an LLM gives the answers it does (not even the LLM). I mean this is exactly what I said. We can't explain it... Because we don't fully understand it.. >But the people who build and train LLMs do know how they work - No they actually don't. The surprising accurate responses of chatGPT were actually not predicted. Many experts literally do not fully understand what's going on. This is categorically true and I can quote them if you need it, but this is easily googable. >I could feed my younger children that same misinformation and they wouldn't question it. I could tell my parents that their Alexa listens to everything they say and records it forever on a big disk on a satellite in orbit, and they would believe me. >A Google researcher said that publicly (he got fired), and much discussion took place here. If I was more interested in the topic I could poll people, I already polled people and did a Google search of HN. My other post was a poll. And a Google search of yielded nothing. This is actually quite strong proof. HN has multitudes of users, not being able to find one is a nearly 0 ratio. The researcher who got fired by Google is an interesting case. The reason is because he's not referring to gpt4 or gpt3.5 or bard. In subsequent interviews he has said that he's referring to lamda. An internal google LLM that hasn't been released. He said that one is "awake" and specified directly that it's different from the LLMs the public currently plays with. Nobody can confirm or deny that statement because we can't directly interact with the lamda AI as Google has it locked down pretty hard. |