← Back to post

Edit history

Most recent

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

Edited

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.

Edited

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

Original

Do humans do better? By what objective metric?

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