• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 个月前

    AI doesn’t grok anything. It doesn’t have any capability of understanding at all. It’s a Markov chain on steroids.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      9 个月前

      …is how generative-AI haters redefine terms and move the goalposts to fight their cognitive dissonance.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 个月前

        Imagine believing that AI-haters are the ones who redefine terms and move goalposts to fight their cognitive dissonance.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 个月前

        I read the abstract, and the connection to your title is a mystery. Are you using “grock” as in “transcendental understanding” or as Musk’s branded AI?

        • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          9 个月前

          No c, just grok, originally from Stranger in a Strange Land. But a more technical definition is provided and expanded upon in the paper. Mystery easily dispelled!

          • yesman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 个月前

            In that case I refer you to u/catloaf 's post. A machine cannot grock, not at any speed.

          • Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 个月前

            Thanks for clarifying, now please refer to the poster’s original statement:

            AI doesn’t grok anything. It doesn’t have any capability of understanding at all. It’s a Markov chain on steroids.

            • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              9 个月前

              We follow the classic experimental paradigm reported in Power et al. (2022) for analyzing “grokking”, a poorly understood phenomenon in which validation accuracy dramatically improves long after the train loss saturates. Unlike the previous templates, this one is more amenable to open-ended empirical analysis (e.g. what conditions grokking occurs) rather than just trying to improve performance metrics

              • catloaf@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 个月前

                Oh okay so they’re just redefining words that are already well-defined so they can make fancy claims.

                • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  9 个月前

                  Well-defined for casual use is very different than well-defined for scholarly research. It’s standard practice to take colloquial vocab and more narrowly define it for use within a scientific discipline. Sometimes different disciplines will narrowly define the same word two different ways, which makes interdisciplinary communication pretty funny.

                  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 个月前

                    It’s standard practice to take colloquial vocab and more narrowly define it for use within a scientific discipline.

                    No. It’s not standard at all, especially when the goal is overtly misleading.

                    Sometimes different disciplines will narrowly define the same word two different ways

                    Maybe one or both disciplines is promoting bullshit.