Comment by anonzzzies
3 days ago
> you could do the same back then with multiple models and more targeted finetuning
Are you one of those anonymous billionaires as if you did this a few years ago, you would've been famous and rich.
3 days ago
> you could do the same back then with multiple models and more targeted finetuning
Are you one of those anonymous billionaires as if you did this a few years ago, you would've been famous and rich.
OP is delusional or deliberately optuse. I work in the space and stare down these systems 12h/day, and saying the systems haven't meaningfully improved is ludicrous.
OP is largely pissed with what OAI/Antrophic are trying to sell as meaningful improvements and the market-bending money they ask for it. I work in the space and we trained LLM models on conceptual tokens, not language tokens, for example. See Symbolic AI and all the attempts at hybrid models.
Also, uh, fame and riches are not really my thing. Middle income is fine. My mistake was speaking up here because I got carelessly annoyed because I have skin in the game, research-wise. I'm sorry for that.
> are trying to sell as meaningful improvements
There may not be "core" improvements (structural reliability) but there are "emergent" improvements (apparent intelligence). Already the IQ tests from Maxim Lott ( trackingai.org ) show a progressive sliding towards the right side of the curve - which btw translates to a very much non-secondary decline in the user's frustration (and progresses with an increase of usability).
The more they work on it, the more probable the jump becomes - e.g. to achieve the Large Conceptual Models you say you worked on.
I still enjoy the symbolic ai space. Any examples of interesting progress there?
You're welcome to speak up, but saying models haven't meaningfully improved in three years, when the most recent models are solving top-level frontier maths problems, is indeed going to strike most people as weird. I still have no idea what you mean.
1 reply →