> No criticism at this particular thing, but it is a good opportunity to mention that GPT-5 only exists if you have non-public information.
What?
> Sure it does.
What? Contradicting yourself immediately?
> I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!”
…what?
> The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information.
I don’t see how this follows from your previous points (if you can even call them that).
> It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments.
Aspects of both things are true. Also, this doesn’t follow from/connect with anything you said previously.
What?
> Sure it does.
What? Contradicting yourself immediately?
> I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!”
…what?
> The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information.
I don’t see how this follows from your previous points (if you can even call them that).
> It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments.
Aspects of both things are true. Also, this doesn’t follow from/connect with anything you said previously.