redlock
Joined 11 years ago
Joined 11 years ago
I have quizzed it with three books (total more than 1500 pages) and it gave great answers.
Initially yes when they released 2 million context with Gemini 1.5 it wasn’t effective.
Try it with Gemini 3 pro/flash now.
This is a ridiculous statement. A simple example of the huge difference is context size.
GPT-4 was, what, 8K? Now we’re in the millions with good retention. And this is just context size, let alone reasoning, multimodality, etc.
Not really a good measure of quality or performance but of cost effectiveness
His quantitative easing and zero interest rate policy only saved asset managers and corporate balance sheets.
People today are worse off than before Covid even though the market is much higher.
Debt fueled growth (through quantitative easing and deficit spending) is not healthy and always has a bad ending.
Real economic growth is what was seen between 1950 and 1970 where purchasing power increased and most of the gains went to the middle class.
I am guessing he is referring to mechanistic interpretability research like these:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16908
https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03282
You are claiming they are statistical parrots, which I don’t think the parent poster meant.
The “statistical parrots” argument might have been compelling with GPT-3, but not with today’s models and the results of mechanistic interpretability research, which show internal representations and rudimentary world models.