Comment by Grimblewald
17 days ago
This reads like "if we have to solution, then we have the solution". If I can model the system required to condition inputs such that outouts are deseriable, haven't i given the model the world model it required? More to the point, isn't this just what the article argues? Scaling the model cannot solve this issue.
it's like saying a pencil is a portraint drawring device, like it isn't thr artist who makes it a portrait drawring device, wheras in the hands of a peot a peom generating machine.
So much of what you said is exactly what I’m saying that it’s pointless to quote any one part. Your ‘pencil’ analogy is perfect! Yes, exactly. Follow me here:
We know that the pencil (system) can write a poem. It’s capable.
We know that whether or not it produces a poem depends entirely on the input (you).
We know that if your input is ‘correct’ then the output will be a poem.
“Duh” so far, right? Then what sense does it make to write something with the pencil, see that it isn’t a poem, then say “the input has nothing to do with it, the pencil is incapable.” ?? That’s true of EVERY system where input controls the output and the output is CAPABLE of the desired result. I said nothing about the ease by which you can produce the output, just that saying input has nothing to do with it is objectively not true by the very definition of such a system.
You might say “but gee, I’ll never be able to get the pencil input right so it produces a poem”. Ok? That doesn’t mean the pencil is the problem, nor that your input isn’t.