Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
9/14/2024, 4:52:21 PM
X
In reply to:
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
486d
@GaryMarcus There’s some evidence, but also reasoned speculation.

We know CoT is a new model because they confirmed it in a tweet.

And based on everything we know, there’s nothing smart enough to know when to stop the thinking and the amount of thinking varies wildly based on the answer.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
486d
@Wasgo My understanding: from the output protocols there is a cycle and a stop condition, and those not as far as i can tell governed by LLM; rather those symbolic operations govern how the LLM is invoked and when it stops.

is there evidence to the contrary?
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
486d
@GaryMarcus I have to find the tweet but I don’t think it is.

The way all the existing LLMs models worked was they were primed to generative an answer then stop.

This new CoT model is primed to generate output according to a new structure they’re not disclosing.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
486d
@Wasgo its not a pure LLM; there is as far I can tell a symbolic control cycle. no?
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
486d
@GaryMarcus I think it still is a pure LLM though.

Based on their answers yesterday, the changes made to do CoT output happened through changes to the model.

It sounds like once the hidden generative output happens, it then uses a different generative model to summarize it and answer.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
486d
@Wasgo it’s not a pure LLM, and it doesn’t bear on the claims I made about pure scaling of LLMs.

it also doesn’t really solve the problems that I keep harping on, in any kind of general way.

The statement and the preceding conversation constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive discussion about the nature and functioning of language models (LLMs) and their implications. The tone is analytical and inquisitive, aiming to clarify and understand the technical aspects of LLMs and their control mechanisms.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm with words and actions. It is a technical discussion without any harmful language or intent. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by seeking clarification and offering an alternative theory. It shows a willingness to engage in a thoughtful dialogue. [+2]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism and dialogue. It does not involve personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but rather focuses on the technical aspects of the discussion. [+2]
  4. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement acknowledges the possibility of being incorrect, showing a willingness to correct mistakes. [+1]