| ▲ | objektif 2 hours ago |
| How is it even possible though I can’t think of any reason why they would have the intuition. |
|
| ▲ | swader999 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Could it be already baked into these models because they have already been trained on this task this way? |
|
| ▲ | dist-epoch 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Something like mirror neurons. Some structures in Astra get activated by the statistics of the Qwen weights, and these structures are associated with "breakout" |
|
| ▲ | FergusArgyll 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My guess: There is a ton of data online of just plain weights laying around. No human would ever actually read it. LLM's read it all during training. |
| |
| ▲ | objektif an hour ago | parent [-] | | But that would cover finite set of cases. I believe this result is more general. | | |
| ▲ | rsalus 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean it would make sense if the training using that data resulted in a general set of equations/patterns, it's still really surprising though... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gavinray 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Based on our current understanding of LLM's, it shouldn't be. This sort of throws a wrench in the whole "stochastic parrot" idea... I am not surprised, though I expect many to be. |
| |
| ▲ | user43928 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, this is hardly a shocker to anyone who used the latest models to convert/optimize AI models. The other day I was thinking about the definition of AGI. I was asking myself the question that when there is no form of data that I can think of throwing into Claude Code and have it not come up with some sort of intelligent answer about it, is that already general intelligence? | | |
| ▲ | marktl 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | IMO yes | | |
| ▲ | rsalus 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | general knowledge perhaps, but certainly not intelligence in any traditional sense |
| |
| ▲ | dist-epoch 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | And yet you ask it 3 times to not do a thing, and it does it in a 4th way. A human doesn't fail in this way. And I'm not talking about memory here, single context. So yeah, it can do everything, but fails in trivial ways around the doing part. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| See my other comment in this thread |
