Technology

60047 readers

2927 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

459

The GPT Era Is Already Ending (www.theatlantic.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

159 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If this is the way to superintelligence, it remains a bizarre one. “This is back to a million monkeys typing for a million years generating the works of Shakespeare,” Emily Bender told me. But OpenAI’s technology effectively crunches those years down to seconds. A company blog boasts that an o1 model scored better than most humans on a recent coding test that allowed participants to submit 50 possible solutions to each problem—but only when o1 was allowed 10,000 submissions instead. No human could come up with that many possibilities in a reasonable length of time, which is exactly the point. To OpenAI, unlimited time and resources are an advantage that its hardware-grounded models have over biology. Not even two weeks after the launch of the o1 preview, the start-up presented plans to build data centers that would each require the power generated by approximately five large nuclear reactors, enough for almost 3 million homes.

https://archive.is/xUJMG

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You wouldn’t need infinite time if you had infinite monkeys.

Obviously, but as I wrote BOTH are impossible, so it's irrelevant. I just didn't think I'd have to explain WHY infinite monkeys is impossible, while some might think the universe is infinite also in time, which it is not.

I also already wrote that if you have an infinite string everything is contained in it.
But even with infinite moneys it's not instant, because technically each monkey needs to finish a page.

But I understand what you mean, and that's exactly why the theorem is so stupid IMO. You could also have 1 monkey infinite time.
But both are still impossible.

When I say it's stupid, I don't mean as a thought experiment which is the purpose of it. The stupid part is when people think they can use it as an analogy or example to describe something

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a theorem. It's theoretical. This is like complaining about the 20 watermelon example being unrealistic: that's not what it is about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's OK it exist, it's a thought that is curious enough. I'd even go so far and say it can have an educational function for children.
I just don't get why some people seem to think it's relevant in so many situations where clearly it's not.