>Software 2.0 are the weights which program neural networks.
>I think it's a fundamental change, is that neural networks became programmable with large libraries... And in my mind, it's worth giving it the designation of a Software 3.0.
I think it's a bit early to change your mind here. We love your 2.0, let's wait for some more time till th
e dust settles so we can see clearly and up the revision number.
In fact I'm a bit confused about the number AK has in mind. Anyone else knows how he arrived at software 2.0?
I remember a talk by professor Sussman where he suggest we don't know how to compute, yet[1].
I was thinking he meant this,
Software 0.1 - Machine Code/Assembly Code
Software 1.0 - HLLs with Compilers/Interpreters/Libraries
Software 2.0 - Language comprehension with LLMs
If we are calling weights 2.0 and NN with libraries as 3.0, then shouldn't we account for functional and oo programming in the numbering scheme?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB5TrK7A4pI
I think it's a bit early to change your mind here. We love your 2.0, let's wait for some more time till th e dust settles so we can see clearly and up the revision number.
In fact I'm a bit confused about the number AK has in mind. Anyone else knows how he arrived at software 2.0?
I remember a talk by professor Sussman where he suggest we don't know how to compute, yet[1].
I was thinking he meant this,
Software 0.1 - Machine Code/Assembly Code Software 1.0 - HLLs with Compilers/Interpreters/Libraries Software 2.0 - Language comprehension with LLMs
If we are calling weights 2.0 and NN with libraries as 3.0, then shouldn't we account for functional and oo programming in the numbering scheme?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB5TrK7A4pI