Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
9/14/2024, 4:57:22 PM
X
In reply to:
Cameron Williams
@Wasgo
·
486d
@GaryMarcus Right. The previous model used answering as the end condition. The new model hides its end condition specifically so the competition can’t copy it.

But there’s nothing to suggest that it’s external to model itself. External would be more impressive than anything they’ve shown.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
486d
@Wasgo well something has to govern that. i gave you my (very underspecified theory, of a loop and conditional); is there an alternative? not sure i am following (and not certain I have it right, either).
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?

The statement '@Wasgo not sure i agree or fully understand but .. maybe?' is part of a technical discussion about machine learning models, specifically the CoT model and its stop condition. This conversation involves substantive engagement with a public issue in the field of artificial intelligence, making it a form of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm with words or actions. It is neutral and seeks clarification, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by expressing uncertainty and openness to further explanation, which aligns with promoting empathy and compassion. [+1]
  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 dialogue without personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It seeks to understand rather than criticize, which aligns with the principle of constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]