you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 64 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's more like taking a digital copy into the test room with you and Ctrl+F'ing every question/answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Except it’s not, because they can’t perfectly recall everything.

    It’s more like reading every book in the world, and someone asking you what comes next after “And I…”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    But the AI isn't "recalling" in the same way you do, it doesn't "remember" what it "read", it "reads" on demand and has instant access to essentially all of the information available online it was trained on (E: though it's becoming more or less the same thing, and is definitely the same when it comes to law books for example), from which it collects the necessary details if and when it needs it.

    So yes, it is literally "sat" there with all the books open in front of it, and the ability to pinpoint a bit of information in any one of all the books in milliseconds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    It doesn’t read on demand, it reads once when it’s being trained, and it later recalls what it learnt from that training.

    Training LLMs takes a very long time and a lot of hardware power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    If it doesn't read it on demand, how does it sometimes spill its training data verbatim then?

    The trained model shouldn't have that, right? But it does?

    https://m.slashdot.org/story/422185

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    These models have so many parameters that, while insufficient to memorize all text it has ever seen, it can end up memorizing some of the content. It is the difference between being able to recall a random passage versus recalling the exact thing you need. Both allow you to spill content verbatim, but one is problematic while the other can be helpful.

    There are techniques to allow it it 'read on demand', but they are not part of the core model (i.e. the autocmpletion model / LLM) and are tacked on top of it. For example, you can tie it search engine, which Microsoft's copilot does, and is something which I don't think is enabled for ChatGPT by default. Or allow it to query a external data bank (Retrieval Augmented Generation).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    It doesn’t read on demand

    Yes, it does, from the information it was trained on (or - stored), which like you say, requires a lot of hardware power so it can be accessed on demand. It isn't just manifesting the information out of thin air, and it definitely doesn't "remember" in the same way we do (E: even the best photographic memory isn't the same as an indexable one).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's definitely not indexed, we use RAG architectures to add indexing to data stores that we want the model to have direct access to, the relevant information is injected directly in the context (prompt). This can somewhat be equated to short term memory

    The rest of the information is approximated in the weights of the neural network which gives the model general knowledge and intuition..akin to long term memory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    or it can be equated to a shitty database and lossy compression (with artifacts in the form of “hallucinations”), but that doesn’t make the tech sound particularly smart, does it?

    but half the posts in your history are in this thread and that’s too many already

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    People have such crazy misconceptions about AI. Glad to see someone else knows how it works at least.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I mean you still gotta understand some shit for Ctrl+F to be helpful. If you've ever taken an open book quiz without prior study you'll learn pretty quick that open book does NOT = easy A (depending on the class / prof I guess, but you get the gist).

    So, open book Ctrl-F'able bar exam, I could probably get an okay score just on key word matching, not knowing jack shit about law; but it'd be far from a perfect score. Current state of machine learning appears to be in a comparable boat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is a computer. Time (in this aspect) isn't an issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    your post shows a serious lack of comprehension. just because so many of the posters in this thread are idiots didn't mean you have to participate too.

    (CPU time extremely counts, and resource-wise with these things it's really quite a lot)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    Steelmanning what this person said, I think the issue is that your ability to CTRL+F through a book during a time-limited exam is not as strong as even a single computer clocked at GHz doing the same thing. You can CTRL+F through a single book in the same time it takes it to CTRL+F through the entire body of knowledge.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    I'm not a big AI guy but it's really not quite like that, models do NOT contain all the data they were trained on.

    Edit: I have no idea what's going on down below this comment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I’m not a big AI guy

    we can tell

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    The guy above you is right though. So what are you on about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    what a weird opportunity for someone to burn a throwaway account. not even gonna dig into what you’ve imagined the other guy is right about, given he didn’t post any information of value

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Lemmy is starting to have a huge problem with people creating multiple sockpuppets--probably programmatically generating them, in fact--just to win internet arguments. If this goes on too long you're going to see a really surprising number of sudden downvotes on everything you've said in this conversation, and anyone who agreed with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It’ll actually be good if that happens because 1) it could be dealt with here, 2) that could be used to feed something that helps defend against it

    (e: I mean, it’ll be a nuisance, and @self would be driven to drink, but it could still be handled)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    that's a misleading and meaningless way of putting it. if I rip a page out of my textbook and bring it into an exam room, I do not have with me all the data in my textbook. and yet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It doesn’t do that, either. LLMs retain the linguistic patterns found in textbooks, nothing more. It’s remarkable that they can do so much with this information alone, but it’s still a far cry from genuine intelligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago*

    Yeah, even setting aside the intelligence claims, I know I'd be feeling a lot more positive about LLMs as a fun theoretical tool if they weren't being sold as personal assistants or search engine replacements etc, which even the apologists here admit they're really really bad at.

    (Also I'd argue "linguistic patterns" is pushing it. "Textual patterns" more like, it's not supposed to have any idea about grammar or even about what "text" is.) (I say "supposed to" because who knows what sort of hacks they're running under the hood.)

  • source
  • parent