Technology

60083 readers

4481 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

210

MIT scientists have just figured out how to make the most popular AI image generators 30 times faster (www.livescience.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/technology

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It is far off. It's like saying you have the entire knowledge of all physics because you skimmed a textbook once.

Interpretation is also a problem that can be solved, current models do understand quite a lot of nuance, subtext and implicit context.

But you're moving the goal post here. We started at "don't get better, at a plateau" and now you're aiming for perfection.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're building beautiful straw men. They're lies, but great job.

I said originally that we need to improve the interpretation of the model by AI, not just have even bigger models that will invariably have the same flaw as they do now.

Deterministic reliability is the end goal of that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Will increasing the model actually help? Right now we're dealing with LLMs that literally have the entire internet as a model. It is difficult to increase that.

Making a better way to process said model would be a much more substantive achievement. So that when particular details are needed it's not just random chance that it gets it right.

Where exactly did you write anything about interpretation? Getting "details right" by processing faster? I would hardly call that "interpretation" that's just being wrong faster.