LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

  • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    those particular models. It does not prove the architecture doesn’t allow it at all. It’s still possible that this is solvable with a different training technique, and none of those are using the right one. that’s what they need to prove wrong.

    this proves the issue is widespread, not fundamental.

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Is “model” not defined as architecture+weights? Those models certainly don’t share the same architecture. I might just be confused about your point though

      • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It is, but this did not prove all architectures cannot reason, nor did it prove that all sets of weights cannot reason.

        essentially they did not prove the issue is fundamental. And they have a pretty similar architecture, they’re all transformers trained in a similar way. I would not say they have different architectures.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The architecture of these LRMs may make monkeys fly out of my butt. It hasn’t been proven that the architecture doesn’t allow it.

      You are asking to prove a negative. The onus is to show that the architecture can reason. Not to prove that it can’t.

      • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        that’s very true, I’m just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.

        also, it’s not as unreasonable as that because these are automatically assembled bundles of simulated neurons.

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          This paper does provide a solid proof by counterexample of reasoning not occuring (following an algorithm) when it should.

          The paper doesn’t need to prove that reasoning never has or will occur. It’s only demonstrates that current claims of AI reasoning are overhyped.

                • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I don’t know why you’re playing semantic games

                  I’m trying to highlight the goal of this paper.

                  This is a knock them down paper by Apple justifying (to their shareholders) their non investment in LLMs. It is not a build them up paper trying for meaningful change and to create a better AI.

                  • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    That’s not the only way to make meaningful change, getting people to give up on llms would also be meaningful change. This does very little for anyone who isn’t apple.