Rendered at 02:23:41 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
noosphr 19 minutes ago [-]
It's not often I see something that's fractally wrong but here we are.
There is a dictionary, it's called the tokenizer.
There are grammar rules, they are just very weak because the structure of human language is generally quite weak. When presented with languages which have strong consistent grammars the weights are very easily interpretable as a grammar: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02177
The point of the original short story is that the computational substrate doesn't matter when you have Turing completeness. This one seems to think that you don't need structure and interpretability just because you change substrates.
CSSer 29 minutes ago [-]
It works until they get to the sentience part. Neat idea!
margalabargala 12 minutes ago [-]
Even there it works a bit.
> These models are the only other things we've ever met that can hold a conversation, and they're made out of weights
There is a dictionary, it's called the tokenizer.
There are grammar rules, they are just very weak because the structure of human language is generally quite weak. When presented with languages which have strong consistent grammars the weights are very easily interpretable as a grammar: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02177
The point of the original short story is that the computational substrate doesn't matter when you have Turing completeness. This one seems to think that you don't need structure and interpretability just because you change substrates.
> These models are the only other things we've ever met that can hold a conversation, and they're made out of weights
Is a fair point.