| ▲ | whimsicalism 3 hours ago | |
> how these models are going to keep up with the expanding boundary of science The same way humans do? The phraseology in this comment: 'probability distributions', 'baked these patterns' IMO has all the trappings of the stochastic parrot-style HN-discourse that has been consistently wrong for almost a decade now. The reference to how AI will keep up with AI-assisted human progress in science in 2030 is meant to reassure. It contains a number of premises that we have no business being confident in. We are potentially witnessing the obviation of human cognitive labor. | ||
| ▲ | mccoyb 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Sorry, are you familiar with what a next token distribution is, mathematically speaking? If you are not, let me introduce you to the term: a probability distribution. Just because it has profound properties ... doesn't make it different. > has all the trappings of the stochastic parrot-style HN-discourse that has been consistently wrong for almost a decade now Perhaps respond to my actual comment compared to whatever meta-level grouping you wish to interpret it as part of? > It contains a number of premises that we have no business being confident in. We are potentially witnessing the obviation of human cognitive labor. What premises? Be clear. | ||