Or ... or ... they counter the conventional wisdom that *humans*
generalize their learning or reasoning beyond text. We are the OG bots.
I do really appreciate this duality/tension: I think you were the
first to alert me to this a few thousand messages back (before LLMs/GPT
talk, etc erupted here) though I vaguely remember Marcus making a
(qualitatively) similar statement as well. I think his comment was
about whether human (early childhood in particular) was anything
different from "emulation".
On 4/7/23 09:15, Steve Smith wrote:
These findings counter the conventional wisdom that LLMs are
merely statistical next-word predictors and can’t generalize their
learning or reasoning beyond text.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
