Did you ever pause to consider that theoretical computer science might not be done for the sake of midwit code monkeys whose deepest contact with complexity theory was when they learned to reverse a linked list in O(n) for their SWE interview?
I'm not sure that retreating to the ivory tower is a winning rhetorical strategy.
Not sure why the hostility anyways. If appreciating TCS results really is a higher brow activity, then GP's indignation at computational models shouldn't upset you, quite the opposite. It's definitionally the normal experience.
And while I do find the blogpost in the OP trite, that is mostly because it's from someone who should absolutely be more intimate with the subject than such "midwitted code monkeys" (aka. normal people) you refer to, yet pretends to feel duped by OAI's results. Quite the different case, and I think is much more worthy of ridicule as a result. They're the high brow who should be appreciating, understanding, yet fail to.
I can confirm that you're reading this incorrectly. There's a reason behind them only comparing it to open-source models released months ago. Here's a good aggregator: https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence
Hilarious critique. If you weren't as mathematically illiterate as you likely are, you would know how general matrix operations are, and how essentially any algorithm (including human cognition) can be implemented using them as an intermediate.
I'm not. But I'll concede you are possibly more literate - I won't dox myself on this account.
Congratulations.
If you honestly argue that LLM computation and human cognition are equivalent there is no further argument to be had - it's immediately a philosophical or worse a religious argument that cannot be won.
However, that we're even arguing on that level baffles me. How did this happen! They're glorified calculators.
They really marketed the hell (sorry) out of LLMs.
> uses a specific, objectively nonsensical critique of LLMs (the idea that an algorithm using matrix operations as a primitive cannot emulate "true" intelligence)
> receives pushback on the specific, objectively nonsensical critique
> "oh so you're saying that LLM computation and human cognition are equivalent? they're glorified calculators that disprove the Jacobian conjecture!!!"
You have unduly assumed that «drop the abuse» implied an «abuse digital minds».
"Expletives" are part of the proper description of facts (typically "to be judged as such") - they are part of the serious assessment of things and as such are normally found. There is no legitimate assumption from the post that they may have been used as gratuitous insults.
"Thinking" seems to be a political term now, people have completely different definitions of it, based on how they wish the world to be organised, and find defining it differently offensive.
reply