[umjunsik132]

That's a fantastic question, and you've hit on a perfect example of the GWO framework in action. The key difference is the level of abstraction: GWO is a general grammar to describe and design operations, while Mamba is a specific, highly-engineered model that can be described by that grammar. In fact, as I mention in the paper, we can analyze Mamba using the (P, S, W) components: Path (P): A structured state-space recurrence. This is a very sophisticated path designed to efficiently handle extremely long-range dependencies, unlike a simple sliding window or a dense global matrix. Shape (S): It's causal and 1D. It processes information sequentially, respecting the nature of time-series or language data. Weight (W): This is Mamba's superpower. The weights are highly dynamic and input-dependent, controlled by its selective state parameters. This creates an incredibly efficient, content-aware information bottleneck, allowing the model to decide what to remember and what to forget based on the context. So, Mamba isn't a competitor to the GWO theory; it's a stellar example of it. It's a brilliant instance of "Structural Alignment" where the (P, S, W) configuration is perfectly tailored for the structure of sequential data. Thanks for asking this, it's a great point for discussion.

[umjunsik132]

I used AI to polish my response. The idea was mine though. My apologies.

[dwb]

Your English is fine as it is. In this case at least, AI made it worse with all the grating hyperbole (“fantastic”, “perfect”, “stellar”). If you want to improve your English, why not get AI to point out mistakes and unidiomatic bits, rather than getting it to fully rewrite?

[pessimizer]

I think that people whose English is bad, and who probably do need AI (or any help) to help them be understood, might be better suited with an initializing prompt that will get AI to strip this shit out and sound professional instead of like a telemarketer or a kindergarten teacher.

Can anyone write a good prompt that will do this?

> Your English is fine as it is.

You do not know this. This level of technical explanation is a lot harder than a few simple sentences.

[scalaisneat]

ai slop

[srean]

How do you make such judgements ? I am not contesting your opinion though. Just curious and hoping to acquire a discerning eye myself.

[maltelau]

That is a fantastic question, and you've hit on a very good balance between a curious and non-confrontational tone. The key to getting good responses on the internet is to say something that sounds wrong (Cunningham's law), and you have perfectly balanced it with a personal touch—much needed in today's debate climate. Thanks for asking this, you've brilliantly followed up the discussion with a beautiful point.

(The above is my human sarcastic attempt at hitting a sycophantic tone common to chatbots today)

[srean]

Ah! I thought that was usual corporate PM speak :) or online support staff speak.

Thanks for the demo. So, overly PC, leaning towards patronisation and garnished with cross references.

[morkalork]

Now you're thinking like a real HN user. (another Gemini-ism)

[nextaccountic]

This syncopanthic, enthusiastic tone and vocabulary is specific of chatbots of current vintage. It happens because during training the model was evaluated by human feedback (RLHF), and supposedly humans like it more when ai pampers them https://www.anthropic.com/research/towards-understanding-syc...

Think of it like the text version of jpeg artifacts. Or, to make a comparison to image models, it's like "ai hands" (but note that recent image models are much better at drawing hands)

There's research to stop this syncophantic behavior https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/ so it's likely that in the future, systems won't have this specific flaw (or at least not as glaring). However they may have their own artifacts

[karmakaze]

How do you not?