| ▲ | BoredomIsFun 2 hours ago |
| I do not think it is a proper thing to do for 17 y.o., unless they are exceptionally mathematically gifted, as proper understanding of how LLMs are trained requires a good grasp of calculus, understanding modern OS and SDE tools for proper implementation of pipeline etc. I'd rather simply write another mnist implementation and check if I really like all that AI stuff at first place. Even then, before going into mature-on-the-way-to-dying tech (LLMs) I'd rather focus on fundamentals - good ols linear models, regressions, stat etc. |
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I do not think it is a proper thing to do for 17 y.o If I'd get a buck every time someone said something like this to me when I was in the 13-18 range, I wouldn't have a ton of money, but it's so very annoying when people tell you this. Regardless if they're "gifted" or not, regardless if you believe in myths like that or not, let children explore what they want to explore, even if you don't understand what it is or why they want to explore that, just let people explore, regardless of age. It was such a terrible experience being a young kid growing up, with so many adults spending hours trying to convince me to stop sitting in front of the computer so much doing whatever; "why are you even trying to learn that stuff, you have to go to school to understand anything of this" and so much other similar trash. Sorry, not your fault and I'm borderline trauma-dumping now, but really sad to see this sort of gatekeeping on HN of all places, age is irrelevant to learning ANYTHING, in my humble opinion at least. Kids, find anything interesting? Jump into it, ignore what adults tell you, and do whatever you feel like, you'll find your place eventually. |
| |
| ▲ | VoidWhisperer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Agree with this - started programming through learning scripting in ROBLOX when I was like 12 (this was back like 17 or 18 years ago) and it developed into a life-long passion for software engineering. I am thankful I had people around me (my parents), who were aware enough to realize I wasn't just playing video games and gave me the time I needed on the computer to learn and experiment with programming... This also meant that by the time I was actually offered to take a programming class in school (junior year of HS), I had already been able to self-teach myself well beyond what that class was covering, thanks to just working on random projects that scratched an itch I had at the time, looking up anything I didn't know or understand, and internalizing those concepts over time. In short though, I definitely agree, young kids and teens (and also, frankly, adults too!) should be encouraged to explore things that they have a passion for, without being told 'you need to go to school for this' or 'you cant understand this at your age' | |
| ▲ | BoredomIsFun 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I just voiced my opinion. I just think buiding an LLM from the scratch for 17 y.o. is pointless exercise, advising a teenager to do so is borderline irresponsible, and frankly PG is simply virtue signalling here, as LLMs are still trendy, esp. in his circles. There still will be varyy small number of outliers among youngsters who'd be able to extract tremensous value from such an excercise, but for most that'd be _IMO_ waste of of time, with illusion of understanding w/o actually having any. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape an hour ago | parent [-] | | > I just voiced my opinion. Same! I just happened to disagree with your opinion, and frankly, I'd say trying to gatekeep what people learn is closer to "borderline irresponsible" compared to asking people to build/learn/do X. > youngsters who'd be able to extract tremensous value from such an excercise But they're youngsters, who are about "extracting value"? Life is about fun, not extraction, not value, not avoiding waste of time but literally enjoy what you do, nothing is more important (IMO). Then who knows, doing fun stuff sometimes lead to useful stuff, like in my life. But if you only think about "extracting most value for time spent" or similar "optimization strategies", then you'd never discover this part of life. | | |
| ▲ | BoredomIsFun an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Life is about fun, not extraction, not value, not avoiding waste of time but literally enjoy what you do, nothing is more important (IMO). This is, pardon, demagoguery. There is always "future fun" and "present fun" which a normal person would assign different nonzero weights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_utility). Besides, building a LLM _truly_ from the scratch, just using the famous 2017 paper and numpy manuals is not fun at all, esp. for a high schooler. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Besides, building a LLM _truly_ from the scratch, just using the famous 2017 paper and numpy manuals is not fun at all, esp. for a high schooler. To you it isn't, is my entire point here. But why extrapolate what you think is fun, to others? Sure, I don't find that fun either (although useful), but who am I to say it isn't fun for others? | | |
| ▲ | BoredomIsFun 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | We can continue this pointless conversation, in the tone "who you are to tell what is fun to others and whst is not". You'd be impervious to any argument stating that dealing with far beyound someone understanding and requiring countless hours of digging into difficult math is not fun even for those who thinks it should be fun, as they presumably, loves everything STEM. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > We can continue this pointless conversation Yeah, if you see it as pointless, then I prefer not to. Have a enjoyable day! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | osigurdson 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think he is basically saying YC has enough startups that are just making API calls. |
|
| ▲ | molf 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why would you tell people that the correct order is to build foundational knowledge before exploring a subject? For some (many?) people, a 'proper' understanding develops _after_ the exploration. |
| |
| ▲ | BoredomIsFun 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Why would you tell people that the correct order Because I can?. JK. Because that was my experience, of someone who is 2.5 older than 17? > For some (many?) people, a 'proper' understanding develops _after_ the exploration. I am afraid you have a too confrontational attitude here, but I'll answer anyway: because I do not believe you can simply "explore" such complex topics like building an LLMs. You'd simply be unable to build LLM drom scratch, unless you'd call cargo-cult chaining magic numpy incantations you've taken from Karpathy's tutorials "exploring". If I were in "exploratory" state of mins, I'd rather go from entirely different side - I'd try playing with LoRA-ing existing small LLMs, such as venerable 2 y.o. Mistral Nemo, to get "feeling" for what training is and how hyperameters influence the process. | | |
| ▲ | molf an hour ago | parent [-] | | > unless you'd call cargo-cult chaining magic numpy incantations you've taken from Karpathy's tutorials "exploring" That's what I would call exploring. I too started exploring programming as a teen by cargo culting. Fooling around and getting results is what made it fun. Understanding came later. | | |
| ▲ | BoredomIsFun 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > That's what I would call exploring. Then it is not "building llm from scratch" in my book. Just mindlees following instructions. Could be educational yes, but only trivially useful, if you have no bloody idea what you are doing. > Fooling around and getting results is what made it fun. Understanding came later. It is not how LLMs are "built from scratch". | | |
| ▲ | molf 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No it's not useful, no you don't know what you're doing, and no it is not 'proper'. But you're learning. Maybe just accept that not everyone starts from fundamental theory, and there are lots of people who start learning by fooling around. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | hresvelgr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I do not think it is a proper thing to do for 17 y.o., unless they are exceptionally mathematically gifted I attempted many projects at a young age that I was absolutely not equipped for. The result of the attempts more often than not left me equipped, every time it left me better off. This is terrible advice. |
| |
| ▲ | BoredomIsFun 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That'd would be a terrible advice if there weren't a plenty of other things "you are not equipped for", but far less daunting both theoretically and practically. Such as, say, convolutional neural networks, or some older ML tech. Or even something totally unrelated to ML. Transformers are difficult to understand even to people with strong ML background, let alone a teenager. | | |
| ▲ | mdp2021 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You are assuming the 17yo in question as an untrained underdeveloped savage. If I were 17 in 2026, I would certainly have exploited all the availabilities from 2010 on - including YouTube, OpenCourseware, the Web simply (Sebastian Raschka etc.) and LLMs. That 17yo would have already built many uncommon bases, and would build further. That is, a 17yo with proper mentality. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >understanding modern OS and SDE tools for proper implementation of pipeline etc. Can you provide an example? |
| |
| ▲ | BoredomIsFun 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How would you filter out garbage from your training data, for example? If you are trying to use someone elses corpus, would it be "from the scratch" then? |
|
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |