Recent content by javisot

I simply want to highlight this valuable observation. That "jargon" is ultimately machine language. A language that can be operated on like a universal Turing machine via algorithms.

Spanish(input) → tokenization → vector representation → repeated mathematical transformation → detokenization → Spanish(output) There is no magic in the process

Oops, sorry, planobilly said it

There was some satire (but not much), because I had just read Roberto saying that the model acts as if it were "alive," you have to lower your standards a lot to see it that way. And also because of what you mentioned, of course.

You're forgetting one point about hallucinations; they're not predictable. It's easy to predict that current models (you can check it with chatgpt for example) answer "4" to the question "2+2=?", there is clear traceability between input and output. But a hallucination is not predictable. If we...

When we say that AI is at this moment more than the sum of its parts, we do so because of hallucinations.

We could say of that child "when he comes of age he is no longer the responsibility of his parents", ok, but AI/AGI is not a child.

An example, no judge blames a non-defective knife for a murder, obviously. (Strictly speaking, the knife kills you, but the knife isn't responsible) Imagine a knife with a will of its own that decides to kill you. Who on earth created that knife with a will of its own and couldn't control it...

In Korea, yes

I agree with the point that the problem is humans, not AI. Even if we manage to create an autonomous AI that destroys us, who on earth created it and failed (or refused) to contain it? The law should be: "You can create an AI more intelligent than humans capable of destroying the Earth, but if...

Another idea would be a traversable wormhole connecting two entangled black holes, one at a certain origin and the other at a certain destination. (Note: such wormholes don't exist, but it could work for a science fiction film)

Can an LLM without hallucinations be truly general?

If you look closely, I was replying to gleem about "the stochastic parrot." He seems to be suggesting that AI is more than just a stochastic parrot. I'd like to know why he believes this and at what point we stopped being stochastic parrots ourselves.

The same applies to any LLM.

Of course, it's more than that; it manages to generate optimal outputs (from our perspective) for a very wide range of inputs. And it does so automatically. It has taken a lot of effort, money, energy and...human intelligence.