| ▲ | andrepd 3 days ago | |
Your statement was > We were unable to find evidence that the Only Connect games are *in the training materials*. which is obviously completely false. You acknowledge as much in another comment when you say > To clarify what I meant by this: Despite looking, we haven't seen any evidence of any of the models consistently responding based on pre-trained knowledge (outside of easier-to-guess trivia-type questions). which has nothing to do with what you said x)) Basically: "to clarify, when I said X, I actually meant something else entirely". But fine, at least now it's not bullshit, it's just vague enough that it wouldn't pass in a 9th grade science project where I went to school. Just my 2 cents. ----- If you'd like to explain more how you supposedly concluded that it wasn't returning data in its training set, I'm all ears. | ||
| ▲ | scrollaway 3 days ago | parent [-] | |
Sorry; I dropped out of school, so I wouldn't know about 9th grade science projects. Would you like to phrase your constructive feedback as an attack instead? (/shrug) Edit after your update: As mentioned in the other comment, the tests were mostly ad-hoc. It's nearly impossible to prove whether something is absent from the training data, but it's possible to put the LLM in a bunch of situations which would be conducive to completing with pre-existing knowledge. | ||