Don't think of LLMs as entities but as simulators. For example, when exploring a topic, don't ask:
"What do you think about xyz"?
There is no "you". Next time try:
"What would be a good group of people to explore xyz? What would they say?"
The LLM can channel/simulate many perspectives but it hasn't "thought about" xyz for a while and over time and formed its own opinions in the way we're used to. If you force it via the use of "you", it will give you something by adopting a personality embedding vector implied by the statistics of its finetuning data and then simulate that. It's fine to do, but there is a lot less mystique to it than I find people naively attribute to "asking an AI".
It's a bit sad and confusing that LLMs ("Large Language Models") have little to do with language; It's just historical. They are highly general purpose technology for statistical modeling of token streams. A better name would be Autoregressive Transformers or something.
They don't care if the tokens happen to represent little text chunks. It could just as well be little image patches, audio chunks, action choices, molecules, or whatever. If you can reduce your problem to that of modeling token streams (for any arbitrary vocabulary of some set of discrete tokens), you can "throw an LLM at it".
Actually, as the LLM stack becomes more and more mature, we may see a convergence of a large number of problems into this modeling paradigm. That is, the problem is fixed at that of "next token prediction" with an LLM, it's just the usage/meaning of the tokens that changes per domain.
If that is the case, it's also possible that deep learning frameworks (e.g. PyTorch and friends) are way too general for what most problems want to look like over time. What's up with thousands of ops and layers that you can reconfigure arbitrarily if 80% of problems just want to use an LLM?
I don't think this is true but I think it's half true.
@lexfridman@sama • HOW MUCH WILL THE CURRENT MODELS CHANGE IF QUANTUM COMPUTING IS IMPLEMENTED TODAY?
• WHAT WILL HE PRIMARILY ASK IF AGI IS ACHIEVED TODAY?
@lexfridman@sama
@lexfridman@sama • How much will the current models change if quantum computing is implemented today?
• What will he primarily ask if AGI is achieved today?
You’re Morally Obligated to Do Remarkable Things. Why?
Well, partly because life is so difficult and challenging that unless you give it everything you have, the chances are very high that it will embitter you. And then you'll be a force for darkness. That’s not good.
Also, the fact that life is short and can be brutal can terrify you into hiding. But you can flip that on its head and understand that since you're all in, you might as well take the adventurous risks. That's a very good thing to understand.
What is also useful to understand is that there isn't anything more adventurous than the truth. This is something that took me a long time to figure out. You can craft your words to get what you want.
if you're attempting to say what you believe to be true and attempting to act in the manner that you think is most appropriate, that's genuinely you. If you're trying to live in the truth, you have the force of reality behind you, and that seems like a good deal. You have the reality and the adventure.
So, why is that a moral obligation?
Well, if you hide and you don't let what's inside of you out—and you don't bring into the world what you could bring—you become cynical and bitter. Not only will you not add to the world what you could add, but you'll start being jealous of people who are competent and doing well and work to destroy them.
That's the pathway to hell.
.@elonmusk: "History is written by the victors. Well, yes, but not if your enemies are still alive and have a lot of time on their hands to edit Wikipedia."
😂😂