96 karma · joined March 8, 2021
Each token the model outputs requires it to evaluate all of the context it already has (query + existing output). By allowing it more tokens to "reason", you're allowing it to evaluate the context many times over, similar to how a person might turn a problem over in their heads before coming up with an answer. Given the performance of reasoning models on complex tasks, I'm of the opinion that the "more tokens with reasoning prompting" approach is at least a decent model of the process that humans would go through to "reason".
As for training, that's a pretty contentious topic in the running community right now -- some recent research concluded that training in supershoes might actually impair race performance: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/su...
He's a good writer, but his content is written through an extreme anti-AI lens, so take it with a pretty big grain of salt.
Is it just me, or is that an incredibly weak/vague definition for AGI? Feels like you could make the claim that AI is at this level already if you stretch the terms he used enough.
Similar significant results for symptoms of cystic fibrosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32275788/
They appear to basically RLHF a model on a bunch of examples of human/AI output on the same prompt. Not sure how well it works, but I'm guessing Mozilla is doing something similar here.
I still enjoy articles like these, though -- think the author did a good job of describing the hats as "modes of working that you switch between" instead of "all-encompassing static personality traits that put you in a box".