Is your assertion that no one has ever written "we tried some stuff on the small inexpensive platform first, then moved to the bigger more expensive platform with the more promising options" in a research paper or literally anywhere else?

▲

fdghrtbrt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, that's not my assertion. In fact I asserted nothing at all.

▲

rogerrogerr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You're speaking in riddles; your communication would be more effective if you didn't do that.

▲

fdghrtbrt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You said "surely", and I asked:

> Why surely? Have you never seen an LLM try something new?

I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler than this.

And I still don't know the answer to how you're so sure. To me there's several explanations, and it seems to you there's only one.

I'm pretty happy with my communication style.

	▲	frank_nitti an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Seems to me the commenter was asking: what observations led us to conclude that original affirmative statement that “the AI did this entirely on its own”. Given that this is a common technique and not a novel invention, it’s probably present in the training set. The “surely” reads like it’s referring to the presence of that information in the training set. But your response casts it as saying “surely the AI has not invented something on its own”. The original question stands IMO, the burden of proof is on whoever is asserting that the AI has invented something on its own, with or without training data that surely already mentions this approach