Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The article links multiple papers on chain of thought reasoning. There are tasks that language models struggle with, but when you ask it to explain its reasoning, certain large language models do much better than the scaling for the normal prompt would suggest. Calling this an 'ascribed quality' is crazy, it's just an observation and says nothing about the internals. Hell, you could even test it yourself if you don't trust the papers.

Saying that it just looks like P(text|internet) is a tautology, it's a text predictor trained on the internet. This doesn't tell you anything about why phenomena like the above occur, or why it occurs only in large language models and only in some of them.



I hope my comment didn’t imply that I’m anything short of impressed: it’s truly a feat.

But it’s one thing to regurgitate a causal structure that’s been said over and over and quite another to propose a novel and falsifiable hypothesis.

Telling a novel-ish just so story is well within the reach of a precocious 8 year old, and that’s selling the bright year old short.

Let’s see one of things propose a novel hypothesis before we get our drawers moist.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: