← Back to context

Comment by grey-area

10 days ago

The answer is quite simple:

It’s not in the training data.

These models don’t think.

no, no, in this case, that's the thing, it is in the training data

just heavily (heavily!) biased towards walking

  • This particular situation is not in the training data, though I’m sure it will be soon to try to shore up claims of ‘reasoning’.

    • The goal of training data is not to collect and reproduce facts. It is to align the model with the statistical probability of producing the correct (expected) response for data outside of its knowledge domain. This is called generalization [1], and it has been explored in depth.

      [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.17173