• AppleTea@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 hours ago

    “Naive” implies some level of understanding, even if a simple one. There is no understanding, its a computer program.

    Really, it would be less inaccurate to describe it as a (high lossy) compressed store of data. Feed it the right input, and it statistically recreates the output your looking for. More or less.

    • hperrin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      It would be even more accurate to call it a statistical next word predictor trained on human language.

        • hperrin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          It is literally a statistical next word predictor. Well, next token, to be extremely accurate. That is what it is in its most basic form. You give it text, it transforms that into tokens, and predicts the next token. You can then transform that back into words.

          The model is the same size no matter how much it’s been trained. You can fine tune a model to predict certain kinds of tokens next, and you can distill a model to create a smaller model (basically training a small model on the output of a large model).

          Lossy compression works in a fundamentally different way.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Even the language “training”, although I know it’s a term of art which has been used for decades, seems to imply some degree of cognition which isn’t representative of the facts.