[littlestymaar]

> they’re specialised tools and this one is not designed to have broad “common sense” in that way.

Except the key property of language models compared to other machine learning techniques is their ability to have this kind of common sense understanding of the meaning of natural language.

> you don’t understand the use case of this enough to be commenting on it at all quite frankly.

That's true that I don't understand the use-case for a language model that doesn't have a grasp of what first/second/third mean. Sub-1B models are supposed to be fine-tuned to be useful, but if the base model is so bad at language it can't make the difference between first and second and you need to put that in your fine-tuning as well as your business logic, why use a base model at all?

Also, this is a clear instance of moving the goalpost, as the comment I responded to was talking about how we should not expect such a small model to have “encyclopedic knowledge”, and now you are claiming we should not expect such a small language model to make sense of language…

[jama211]

Don’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t say that, and no goalposts have been moved. You don’t understand how tiny this model is or what it’s built for. Don’t you get it? This model PHYSICALLY COULDN’T be this small and also have decent interactions on topics outside its specialty. It’s like you’re criticising a go kart for its lack of luggage carrying capacity. It’s simply not what it’s built for, you’re just defensive because you know deep down you don’t understand this deeply, which you reveal again and again at every turn. It’s ok to accept the responses of people in this thread who are trying to lead you to the truth of this matter.

[littlestymaar]

> Don’t you get it? This model PHYSICALLY COULDN’T be this small and also have decent interactions on topics outside its specialty

What is “Its specialty” though? As far as I know from the announcement blog post, its specialty is “instruction following” and this question is literally about following instructions written in natural languages and nothing else!

> you’re just defensive because

How am I “being defensive”? You are the one taking that personally.

> you know deep down you don’t understand this deeply, which you reveal again and again at every turn

Good, now you reveal yourself as being unable to have an argument without insulting the person you're talking to.

How many code contributions have you ever made to an LLM inference engine? Because I have made a few.

[jama211]

Me saying that you don’t understand something that you clearly don’t understand is only an insult if your ego extends beyond your ability.

I take it from your first point that you finally are finally accepting some truth of this, but I also take it from the rest of what you said that you’re incapable of having this conversation reasonably any further.

Have a nice day.

[littlestymaar]

A bunch of advice when socializing with people:

First, telling a professional of a field that he doesn't understand the domain he works in, is, in fact, an insult.

Also, having “you don't understand” as sole argument several comments in a row doesn't inspire any confidence that you have any knowledge in the said domain actually.

Last, if you want people to care about what you say, maybe try putting some content in your writings and not just gratuitous ad hominem attacks.

Lacking such basic social skills makes you look like an asshole.

Not looking forward to hearing from you ever again.

[jama211]

Pot. Kettle. Black.