42gauge
42gauge t1_j7ec40a wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in [N] OpenAI starts selling subscriptions to its ChatGPT bot by bikeskata
> It means intellectually transparent about the code
But you can't download any of the GPT models, or the code used to train them, so is it open in that sense?
42gauge t1_j7ebele wrote
Reply to comment by cachemonet0x0cf6619 in [N] OpenAI starts selling subscriptions to its ChatGPT bot by bikeskata
How do your kids use it?
42gauge t1_j7eal36 wrote
Reply to comment by SimonJDPrince in [D] Understanding Vision Transformer (ViT) - What are the prerequisites? by SAbdusSamad
What are the math/ML prerequisites for this text?
42gauge t1_j7ea8pz wrote
Reply to comment by PedroGonnet in [R] Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models - Amazon Web Services Zhuosheng Zhang et al - Outperforms GPT-3.5 by 16% (75%->91%) and surpasses human performance on ScienceQA while having less than 1B params! by Singularian2501
And this would be many parameters for little... model
42gauge t1_j7e9twt wrote
Reply to comment by astonzhang in [R] Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models - Amazon Web Services Zhuosheng Zhang et al - Outperforms GPT-3.5 by 16% (75%->91%) and surpasses human performance on ScienceQA while having less than 1B params! by Singularian2501
> I was teaching my kid how to solve arithmetic reasoning problems (not from the MultiArith dataset...
lol ..
42gauge t1_j7e9mb2 wrote
Reply to comment by yaosio in [R] Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models - Amazon Web Services Zhuosheng Zhang et al - Outperforms GPT-3.5 by 16% (75%->91%) and surpasses human performance on ScienceQA while having less than 1B params! by Singularian2501
> If I train you that every number plus another number is a number, but 2+2 is special and equals chair, you could determine I'm lying because it's not consistent with all the data as a whole.
If I train you that every animal isn't conscious, but humans are special and conscious, you could "determine" I'm lying because it's not consistent with all the data as a whole.
42gauge t1_j5rrh9p wrote
42gauge t1_izyeftq wrote
Reply to comment by master3243 in [D] NeurIPS 2022 Outstanding Paper modified results significantly in the camera ready by Even_Stay3387
NeurIPS redacts the award and gives it to another paper, and the authors work to explain the difference?
42gauge t1_izye37i wrote
Reply to comment by dulipat in [D] NeurIPS 2022 Outstanding Paper modified results significantly in the camera ready by Even_Stay3387
Did this paper have very good results with bad scientific method?
42gauge t1_izye18i wrote
Reply to comment by mil24havoc in [D] NeurIPS 2022 Outstanding Paper modified results significantly in the camera ready by Even_Stay3387
> Best papers shouldn't be awarded for performance, that would be bad science. Best papers are awarded for innovation and quality
But exceptionally good performance, whether real or fake, is usually used as a predictor for innovation and quality. If the authors hadn't made this mistake, this paper would have obviously been of higher quality - and yet, do you really think it would have stood out even more without that error?
42gauge t1_izw3a1a wrote
Reply to comment by p-morais in [D] - Has Open AI said what ChatGPT's architecture is? What technique is it using to "remember" previous prompts? by 029187
What's the special prompt?
42gauge t1_j8pzroz wrote
Reply to comment by Alarming_Turnover578 in [R] Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models - Amazon Web Services Zhuosheng Zhang et al - Outperforms GPT-3.5 by 16% (75%->91%) and surpasses human performance on ScienceQA while having less than 1B params! by Singularian2501
Fine, just mentally replace both instances of "conscious" with "sapient"