I guess then it has no problem working in high dimensional spaces, why would it have?. I wonder if perhaps it's pulling on a bunch of those dimensional threads and getting the outcome it's after, while subtly altering the outcomes across many thousands more dimensions in unnoticed ways. This feels more like an us problem, as in, we think in 4D (just to pick something) and we imagine and theorise in 4d, and propose questions in 4d, whereas a model has no such barriers, and can think in many more D's than we can.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that OpenAI has been including some networks and their functionality in its training data. That's why the model is able to reason about networks with their weights. It makes sense to do so: if I wanted a network that could perform some weight tweaking, I'd include such networks in the training set.
damn i'd imagine so too! didn't think of that. I'd have to imagine there's an increasing challenge with the number of weights involved but who knows how it shakes out
Ok, but how about student grades? I wouldn't have expected any impact on mental health resulting from a school ban considering the exposure they get every other hour of the day.
I think the point is all the "kids are getting damaged by phone use" talking points. It's using the school bans as a useful study; we can see what happens to kids if they're not allowed to use phones here.
iirc a similar study on the Aussie age ban is finding similar results; basically no difference. Some kids benefit, others suffer.
Isn't it the inverse? i.e we think it is bad for students to have phones in schools, but it might be a problem for the students if we ban them, so let's do the test ... yep, no problem for the students, so let's definitely ban them for educational reasons?
Maybe there is a difference in phone addiction management if they are allowed to use it every 45 minutes and if they are forced to be abstinent for 7 hours straight.
I personally would've guessed many immediate positive effects just from a phone ban in school, TFA claims they have a measurement against that.
maybe it's more like banning smoking - stopping a smoker for 8 hours a day would definitely positively impact their health, even if they find it incredibly annoying.
Or it could make it worse, depending a lot on highly-specific details of the school and the student's personality. A lot of people really hated the social environment of the schools they were forced to attend as children, and carry the scars into adulthood. On the other hand, a lot of other people liked doing things with their friends at school and have fond memories of it.
Wat? Why would there be a difference? It only takes an hour a day or less of social media with an algorithm designed to make you anxious to really affect your mental health, how would limiting available social media time to 8 hours help?
I treat it as more akin to the (slightly more-awkward) "single-digit millions" whereas "millions" could go over. It's just a SV-ism. I usually find it pretty easy to disambiguate and I confuse it as little as I do the same / in dy/dx vs. 1/2. Notational overload is pretty normal in human communication, I think.
as has happened time and again through history. software development skills will fade as models become genuinely better at creating, designing, architecting, engineering, testing, validating code at the level of fully complete products.
There will still be the need for humans in the loop to make sure the final product is suitable and what the humans genuinely wanted. We'll all become QA / Acceptance testers. For a little while , that will go away in the end too I think. software will become nothing more special than every day household objects.
Making a custom household object requires time, effort, and expense. Especially if you want it to be nice.
A lot of DIY AI software is going to be the equivalent of home built workshop / shed furniture: it works fine, but it is janky and built from whatever they had at the hardware store. There will be a place for professional assemblers and designers and engineers at the furniture store / factories.
Is there a reason you seem to believe this "jank" in the AI software world will stay the same forever? The policies, testing and general knowledge of the professionals are part of what's training the AI models... accurately passing all necessary software standards/certifications/policies are just a few (near future) prompts away.
> Once this done, where will the general knowledge to train AI come from?
I think this assumes that all professionals will eventually disappear and be replaced entirely with AI, and I don't agree with that.
The existence of AI does not dictate that developers can or will no longer exist (and not everyone will even use AI). I think we will still have enough data to train from... and if not, then the AI simply won't be used for that and people will learn again the old fashioned way.
When people install npm packages, they typically only install ones the community trusts. These packages have clear APIs, open source, good docs, test coverage, security checks, and, importantly, usually no undocumented side effects.
Engineers introduce these packages into their own projects that have far fewer of the above guarantees than OSS, are built under pressure from deadlines, and have a constantly churning set of maintainers.
I think from the perspective of a business its own code does call for greater scrutiny than its dependencies.
reply