I think the real issue here is understanding _you_.

▲ AdieuToLogic 5 days ago | parent [-]

> I think the real issue here is understanding _you_.

My apologies for being unclear and/or insufficiently explaining my position. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and giving me an opportunity to clarify.

The original post stated:

  Since LLMs and in general deep models are poorly understood ...

To which I asserted:

  This is demonstrably wrong.

And provided a link to what I thought to be an approachable tutorial regarding "How to Build Your Own Large Language Model", albeit a simple implementation as it is after all a tutorial.

The person having the account name "__float" replied to my post thusly:

  That doesn't mean we _understand_ them, that just means we 
  can put the blocks together to build one.

To which I interpreted the noun "them" to be the acronym "LLM's." I then inferred said acronym to be "Large Language Models." Furthermore, I took __float's sentence fragment:

  That doesn't mean we _understand_ them ...

As an opportunity to share a reputable resource which:

  .. can serve as a reference for anyone interested in large
  language models.

Is this a sufficient explanation regarding my previous posts such that you can now understand?

▲ throwaway314155 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'm telling you right now, man - keep talking like this to people and you're going to make zero friends. However good your intentions are, you come across as both condescending and overconfident.

And, for what it's worth - your position is clear, your evidence less-so. Deep learning is filled with mystery and if you don't realize that's what people are talking about when they say "we don't understand deep learning" - you're being deliberately obtuse.

===========================================================

edit to cindy (who was downvoted so much they can't be replied to): Thanks, wasn't aware. FWIW, I appreciate the info but I'll probably go on misusing grammar in that fashion til I die, ha. In fact, I've probably already made some mistake you wouldn't be fond of _in this edit_.

In any case thanks for the facts. I perused your comment history a tad and will just say that hacker news is (so, so disappointingly) against women in so many ways. It really might be best to find a nicer community (and I hope that doesn't come across as me asking you to leave!) ============================================================

▲ AdieuToLogic 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I'm telling you right now, man - keep talking like this to people and you're going to make zero friends.

And I'm telling you right now, man - when you fire off an ad hominem attack such as:

  I think the real issue here is understanding _you_.

Don't expect the responder to engage in serious topical discussion with you, even if the response is formulated respectfully.

	▲	throwaway314155 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		What I meant to say is that you were deliberately speaking cryptically and with a tone of confident superiority. I wasn't trying to imply you were stupid (w.r.t. "Ad Hominem"). Seems clear to me neither of us odd going to change the others mind though at this point. Take care. edit edit to cindy: =======================••• fun trick. random password generate your new password. don't look at it. clear your clipboard. you'll no longer be able to log in and no one else will have to deal with you. ass hole ========================== (for real though someone ban that account)

▲ cindyllm 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲ cindyllm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]