Belisarius Cawl
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2024
No, it's not pedantic at all. I don't know much at all about transformers in this context but RNNs go back to I think the late 80s and, as they have "recurrent" right in the name, they've been used to model the recursive nature of human language. Isn't there meaningful recursion there at least?Transformers, and the RNNs they replaced, have a fundamental input and output unit of token sequences. When you give an LLM JSON as input, it's not """interpreting""" it as an AST or something with depth and structure, it's interpreting it as a sequence of tokens. This sounds pedantic but it effectively erases much of the built in structure of the data. Imagine if instead of handing you a math as a graph, I gave it to you as a list of nodes with linkages.
Sorry, your comment after this was interesting and I wonder if machine learning could be used in breaking things down like you mentioned, but when I said "complexity" I meant like doing better than quadratic worst case time. As in, could we do O(n log n) or better?Complexity isn't always a good thing.
Good heuristic. Neovim can integrate Copilot but I refuse to use it. (Neovim with LazyVim probably has too much as is.)When I used copilot, I used the 5 second rule. If it took me more than 5 seconds to understand something it wanted to add, I wouldn't add it. For stuff like GPT, I only ask it concept questions, and I often obfuscate details or ask it to generate in a different language or even pseudocode.
I remember asking ChatGPT to implement a benchmark MNIST digit classifier in QBASIC. It failed the Turing test by not telling me to eat shit and die but surprisingly blocked out a sensible bunch of heavily commented subroutines.