KevinBenSmith
Joined 5 years ago
Joined 5 years ago
I believe a world without these programs (or as you said “watered-down” versions) is more fair for the merchant and others shoppers not using such cards. Especially if the merchant is not allowed to charge the end-consumer with this added fee.
I really like their approach and I think it’s valuable. And in this particular case, they do have a way to score the explainer model. And I think it could be very valuable for various AI Safety issues.
However, I don’t yet see how it can help with the potentially biggest danger where a super intelligent AGI is created that is not aligned with humans. The newly created AGI might be 10x more intelligent than the explainer model. To such an extent that the explainer model is not capable of understanding any tactics deployed by the super intelligent AGI. The same way ants are most probably not capable of explaining the tactics delloyed by humans, even if we gave them a 100 years to figure it out.
And as soon as you want to slightly modify something to better accomodate your use-case, you are trapped in layers & layers of Python boiler plate code and unnecessary abstractions.
Maybe our llm applications haven’t been complex enough to warrent the use of langchain, but if that’s the case, then I wonder how many of such complex applications actually exist today.
-> Anyways, I came away feeling quite let down by the hype.
For my own personal workflow, a more “hackable” architecture would be much more valuable. Totally fine if that means it’s less “general”. As a comparison, I remember the early days of HugginfaceTransformers where they did not try to create a 100% high-level general abstraction on top of every conceivable Neural Network architecture. Instead, each model architecture was somewhat separate from one another, making it much easier to “hack” it.
Here's the direct link: https://share.snipd.com/episode/b79b2cf1-b998-4ef9-9ffc-13af...