Imagine a model smarter than most humans that fits on your phone.
edit: I seem to be the only one excited by the possibilities of such small yet powerful models. This is an iPhone moment: a computer that fits in your pocket, except this time it's smart.
It's pretty easy to craft a prompt that will force the LLM to reply with something like
> The `foobar` is also incorrect. It should be a valid frobozz, but it currently points to `ABC`, which is not a valid frobozz format. It should be something like `ABC`.
Where the two `ABC`s are the exact same string of tokens.
Obviously nonsense to any human, but a valid LLM output for any LLM.
This is just one example. Once you start using LLMs as tools instead of virtual pets you'll find lots more similar.
People say nonsense all the time. LLMs also don't have this issue all the time. They are also often right instead of saying things like this. If this reply was meant to be a demonstration of LLMs not having human level understanding and reasoning, I'm not convinced.
They trained models on only task specific data, not on a general dataset and certainly not on the enormous datasets frontier models are trained on.
"Our training sets consist of 2.9M sequences (120M tokens) for shortest paths; 31M sequences (1.7B tokens) for noisy shortest paths; and 91M sequences (4.7B tokens) for random walks. We train two types of transformers [38] from scratch using next-token prediction for each dataset: an 89.3M parameter model consisting of 12 layers, 768 hidden dimensions, and 12 heads; and a 1.5B parameter model consisting of 48 layers, 1600 hidden dimensions, and 25 heads."
Or, ignore the hype, look at what we know about how these models work and about the structures their weights represent, and base your answers on that today.
Yes, I do. Any way you slice this term, it looks close to what ML models are learning through training.
I'd go as far as saying LLMs are meaning made incarnate - that huge tensor of floats represents a stupidly high-dimensional latent space, which encodes semantic similarity of every token, and combinations of tokens (up to a limit). That's as close as reifying the meaning of "meaning" itself as we ever come.
(It's funny that we got there through brute force instead of developing philosophy, and it's also nice that we get a computational artifact out of it that we can poke and study, instead of incomprehensible and mostly bogus theories.)
I can't speak for anyone else, but these models only seem about as smart as google search, with enormous variability. I can't say I've ever had an interaction with a chatbot that's anything redolent of interaction with intelligence.
Now would I take AI as a trivia partner? Absolutely. But that's not really the same as what I look for in "smart" humans.
I'm not really sure what to look for, frankly. It makes a rather uninteresting conversation partner and its observations of the world bland and mealy-mouthed.
But potentially maybe I'm just not looking for a trivia partner in my software.
The image description capabilities are pretty insane, crazy to think it's all happening on my phone. I can only imagine how interesting this is accessibility wise, e.g. for vision impaired people.
I believe there are many more possible applications for these on a smartphone than just chatting with them.
>anything redolent of interaction with intelligence
compared to what you are used to right?
I know it's elitist but most people <=100 iq (and no, this is not exact obviously, but we have not many other things to go by) are just ... well, a lot of state of the art LLMs are better at everything compared, outside body 'things' (for now) of course, as they don't have any. They hallucinate/bluff/lie as much as the humans and the humans might know they don't know, but outside that, the LLMs win at everything. So I guess that, for now, people with 120-160 iqs find LLMs funny but wouldn't call them intelligent, but below that...
My circle of people I talk with during the day has changed since I took on more charity which consists of fixing up old laptops and installing Ubuntu on them; I get them for free from everyone and I give them to people who cannot afford, including some lessons and remote support (which is easy as I can just ssh in via tailscale). Many of them believe in chemtrails, vaccinations are a gov ploy etc and multiple have told me they read that these AI chatbots are nigerian or indian (or so) farms trying to fraud them out of 'things' (they usually don't have anything to fraud otherwise I would not be there). This is about half of humanity; Gemma is gonna be smarter than all of them, even though I don't register any LLM as intelligence and with the current models, it won't happen either. Maybe a breakthrough in models will be made that changes it, but it has not much chance yet.
This is incorrect, IQ tests are normally scaled such that average intelligence is 100, and such that they are approximately normally distributed so that most people will be somewhere between 85-115 (66% on average).
IQ is defined such that both average and mean would be equal 100. The combination of sub-100 and exactly-100 would be more people than above-100, hence "most people <=100 iq".
Judging from your comment, it seems that your statistical sample is heavily biased as well, as you are interacting with people that can't afford a laptop. That's not representative of the average person.
edit: I seem to be the only one excited by the possibilities of such small yet powerful models. This is an iPhone moment: a computer that fits in your pocket, except this time it's smart.