They made hundreds and 16 worked (when synthesized by humans), seems stochastic to me. Humans do better to my knowledge (I’m out of touch but do have a relevant background). It’s based on LLM architecture (using genes and proteins in place of language), also known as a stochastic parrot, which was the sense in which I was using it.
I don’t deny it’s a scary technology, more because of the likelihood of mistakes (or as AI companies like to say, ‘hallucinations’, anthropomorphising as advertising) than any intention.
As usual with this type of technology you need to be competent with the field before it becomes a force multiplier, and those people could already make viruses, and have been able to for a long time. For example, one of the previous stochastic methods was randomized mutation in a specific environment.
Do humans do better? By what objective metric? How many of these have humans even made in history?
Also you don’t really need a human to verify these outputs, they just tried them. How many of these have humans even made? Also for the first of its kind with no previous rlhf scheme a 5% success rate is actually insane, this rate has historically dramatically improved with successive versions.
The stochastic parrot paper was nonsense, neurons are entirely stochastic. Stochastic models can be made very accurate
“Too stochastic” is nonsense. Neurons are stochastic. Also they made 16 from scratch.
They made hundreds and 16 worked (when synthesized by humans), seems stochastic to me. Humans do better to my knowledge (I’m out of touch but do have a relevant background). It’s based on LLM architecture (using genes and proteins in place of language), also known as a stochastic parrot, which was the sense in which I was using it.
I don’t deny it’s a scary technology, more because of the likelihood of mistakes (or as AI companies like to say, ‘hallucinations’, anthropomorphising as advertising) than any intention.
As usual with this type of technology you need to be competent with the field before it becomes a force multiplier, and those people could already make viruses, and have been able to for a long time. For example, one of the previous stochastic methods was randomized mutation in a specific environment.
Do humans do better? By what objective metric? How many of these have humans even made in history?
Also you don’t really need a human to verify these outputs, they just tried them. How many of these have humans even made? Also for the first of its kind with no previous rlhf scheme a 5% success rate is actually insane, this rate has historically dramatically improved with successive versions.
The stochastic parrot paper was nonsense, neurons are entirely stochastic. Stochastic models can be made very accurate