|
|
|
|
|
|
by ben_w
15 days ago
|
|
|
Careful, looks like you're shifting definitions. Remember, I was saying "by this definition", where "this" isn't about capabilities, but about effort needed to get there, which in the case of your link is "260B tokens of historical pre-1931 English text". A human who read 260e9 tokens will take something like 1900 years of 24/7 reading to get that far, while a more realistic human (though one who still reads a lot) would take 260e9/((50000/0.75)*365) ~= 10,685 years, and that still only gets you something "interesting" rather than "competent". Don't get me wrong, even merely HumanEval pass@100 ~= 0.04 (eyeballing that chart) shows the model has clearly learned something and isn't just randomly throwing things at the wall. All I'm saying is this took a huge effort to get even that far (and, implicitly, that this is a reasonable argument to use if you want to say they're "not intelligent"). |
|
|