|
|
|
|
|
by mvieira38
338 days ago
|
|
Your examples are not LLMs, though, and don't really behave like them at all. If we take the chess analogy and design an "LLM-like chess engine", it would behave like an average 1400 London spammer, not like Stockfish, because it would try to play like the average human plays in it's database. It isn't entirely clear what problem LLMs are solving and what they are optimizing towards... They sound humanlike and give some good solutions to stuff, but there are so many glaring holes. How are we so many years and billions of dollars in and I can't reliably play a coherent game of chess with ChatGPT, let alone have it be useful? |
|
Why would it play like the average? LLMs pick tokens to try and maximize a reward function, they don't just pick the most common word from the training data set.