|
Top-level
 @mattb @hipsterelectron @dalias Yes, there is a long tradition of parsing into semantic representations, and even work on generating from them. If you look at it that way, you immediately see that generation of grammatical strings alone isn't really enough. You need to have a way to connect the semantic representations to some model of the world, and determine what valid things you want to say. 7 comments
 @emilymbender @mattb @hipsterelectron @dalias LLMs are just Ricardian models of the world (it's clear the people [outside acidemia] who make them think they will just infinitely grow in knowledge perfectly) @emilymbender @mattb @hipsterelectron @dalias I make this as my own observation, not as an explanation. Obviously you know more in the academic field, but I also observe on the practitioner space where we are looking at putting them in front of people and I'm not so sure. Not every message has the intent you seem to be alluding to @tanepiper Please feel free to make your observations outside of my mentions, then. As it stands, you have addressed this comment to me, in response to my post, without any connective text indicating how it is supposed to relate. It reads as if you felt that I needed to be enlightened. @tanepiper Also, in case you missed it, mansplaining is never about intent. @emilymbender no, apologies if it came off that way - reading it with a tinge of sarcasm and deadpan humour helps (but of course that does not come across in text). Many sales teams of products promise infinite productivity gains and it's exhausting. I've clarified it's this hopefully. FWIW I was already in this particular thread, just a different branch 🤷🏼♀️ |
Gregory's Server
@mattb @hipsterelectron @dalias
One of the issues with LLMs is that they provide apparent fluency on unlimited topics, making it seem like you don't need to do the extremely difficult world modeling work on those topics...