• Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.