Comment by davebren
15 days ago
You could just test it for yourself if you're actually interested in finding out (assuming you are a decent programmer, but your bio suggests you have no technical expertise in the area).
15 days ago
You could just test it for yourself if you're actually interested in finding out (assuming you are a decent programmer, but your bio suggests you have no technical expertise in the area).
I was working in machine learning before you were old enough to take programming classes.
https://github.com/jleclanche
As I said, I founded and run a AI lab. Now get over yourself.
First I never made any claims about myself or appealed to my authority, that was you. I still don't see any evidence of any technical expertise in ML or in programming anything more complicated than python scripts. Maybe you weren't aware but often on the internet people make false claims about their expertise on something. There's thousands of "Visionary leader driving ethical AI innovation and strategic growth" CEOs that know next to nothing about the actual technology.
Anyway like I said you can just test it out yourself and find out that I'm correct. Every skilled programmer already knows this and can predict what kind of complexity an LLM won't be able to handle. And anyone working on LLMs should know that they are completely dependent on their training data. The entire scaling hypothesis was based on this.
There's open source ML&DL projects dating back 12 years on my github, I don't know what you're on about.
Regardless, your claim is "LLMs being able to one-shot any higher-order complexity is entirely dependent on it already being in the training data." which is currently unfalsifiable, and known by every AI researcher to be most likely wrong. You've also said it's "been demonstrated". So stop wasting people's time and link to the demonstration instead of hand-waving a "do it yourself you're smart".
Good lord, it's like talking to a bloody climate change denier, I swear.
3 replies →