I often see a lot of people with outdated understanding of modern LLMs.

This is probably the best interpretability research to date, by the leading interpretability research team.

It’s worth a read if you want a peek behind the curtain on modern models.

  • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah, it’s about as useful as saying that all of science is “just statistics”. Which like, in a literal way, it’s true. But science is still what forms the foundation of our entire civilization and base of knowledge.

    Knowing that a blood pressure drug works is “just statistics”, but you still take it if your blood pressure is high.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yes, that’s a valid comparison. It’s worse with neural nets, though. Much of machine learning is literally applied statistics. That is, a program is written that applies statistical methods to data and then adjusts its behavior. So, saying that it’s statistics has the potential to really send people down the wrong track. Many of the “human hallucinations” about AIs result from confusion about this.