Recent comments in /f/MachineLearning

Matthew2229 t1_jduz7mi wrote

Reply to comment by Kush_McNuggz in [D] Simple Questions Thread by AutoModerator

When you're clustering or classifying, you are predicting something discrete (clusters/classes), so it's unclear what you mean by removing these hard cutoffs. There must be some kind of hard cutoff when doing clustering/classification unless you are okay with something having a fuzzy classification (e.g. 70% class A / 30% class B).

1

bjj_starter t1_jduz6p7 wrote

Reply to comment by thecodethinker in [D] GPT4 and coding problems by enryu42

I'm not sure if most of them would agree, based on their actions and statements. They certainly think that AI is an existential risk, but that is a different thing from viewing it as conscious. You could definitely be right, I just haven't seen much from them that would indicate it.

That said, the extremely common sense position you just outlined was mainstream among basically all respectable intellectuals who had any position on AI, right up until the rubber hit the road and it looked like AI might actually achieve that goal in the near future. The fact is that if something behaves like a conscious entity in all of the ways that matter, it is conscious for the sake of the social meaning of the term. Provenance shouldn't matter any more than gender.

2

Matthew2229 t1_jduyuw9 wrote

Reply to comment by Various_Ad7388 in [D] Simple Questions Thread by AutoModerator

I think either is probably fine to learn. Both have roughly the same set of features at this point. TF used to be the pre-dominant framework, but PyTorch has gained popularity over the past few years. Now if it'll stay that way or there will be a new trend in the future, no one can say for sure.

1

Matthew2229 t1_jduyi8o wrote

Reply to comment by masterofn1 in [D] Simple Questions Thread by AutoModerator

It's a memory issue. Since the attention matrix scales quadratically (N^2) with sequence length (N), we simply don't have enough memory for long sequences. Most of the development around transformers/attention has been targeting this specific problem.

2

Matthew2229 t1_jdux7sh wrote

Reply to [D] Definitive Test For AGI by jabowery

No, this is not a "definitive test for AGI". It just shows that the system is able to solve a single task. What if you give the same model a simple IQ test question and it fails miserably? Clearly it's not an AGI.

1

topcodemangler t1_jduuhcf wrote

Reply to [D] Simple Questions Thread by AutoModerator

Is there any real progress on the JEPA architecture proposed and pushed by LeCun? I see him constantly bashing LLMs and saying how we need JEPA (or something similar) to truly solve intelligence but it has been a long time since the initial proposition (2 years?) and nothing practical has come out of it.

​

It may sound a bit aggressive but that was not my intention - the original paper really sparked my interest and I agree with a lot that he has to say. It's just that I would want to see how those ideas fare in the real world.

2