maxaravind

Joined 7 months ago

Karma
7
Submissions
22
Member since
Apr 9
Founder & CEO - LatentForce | Building LatentGraph - context layer for AI coding agents.| Interested in all things ML | Previously trained deep neural networks for a living and for fun |
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 6 months ago
The blog discusses a potential path to making LLMs self-referential and self-directed continual learners.

Solving continual learning is key to AGI - and we maybe close to solving it.

Comment · 6 months ago
Didn't get this error before. Try now, it should be fixed.
Comment · 6 months ago
I'd say the way to think about it is in terms of the questions you ask being in-distribution or out of distribution w.r.t the model training dataset.

Consider this, if something fundamental has changed in the world after the model was released(ie after the knowledge cut off date), then it would be very difficult for the model to reason about it. One concrete example is the the following: If you ask Opus or any decent coding model to do effort estimation on a coding task, then it would come up with multi week timelines - the models themselves doesn't know that because "they exist", these timelines have now been slashed to a few hours - you can try saying this in the prompt, however, they don't seem to internalise this.

Comment · 6 months ago
There has been a lot of talk about how continual learning might be "just and engineering challenge" and that we could have agents that continuously learn from experience by just having longer and longer context windows.

Here is a clip of Dario hinting at something similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0x99Uu4rJc

What I am trying to argue for in the article is how such a view might be misplaced - just extending the context length and adding more instructions in the context will not get you continual learning - the representational capacity of weights will be the limiting factor.

Just a fun way to think about it. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Comment · 6 months ago
Comment · 6 months ago
Nope. Even if context can theoretically encode arbitrary computation under fixed weights, this requires the weights to implement a usable interpreter. Random weights almost surely do not. Training is what constructs that interpreter. Without it context has no meaningful computational semantics.

It's kind of like asking if I make a random circuit with logic gates, does that become a universal computer that can run programs.

Comment · 6 months ago
lol nice analogy. LLMs are frozen diamonds forged in compute. We need then to be malleable in production and change with experience.
Comment · 6 months ago
I think both the views have their merits. In my mind the hardware vs software analogy for weights vs context holds better because in most modern computing systems, the hardware is fixed and the software changes. What the system can do efficiently, in practice, is a function of both the limitations/capabilities of the hardware and the software their respective capability ceilings.

The brain theory also kind of says the same thing, but it's hard to say what stays fixed vs changes with experience in the brain ig.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton