this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
1312 points (95.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

5467 readers
6 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
1312
Bing AI performing at its peak once again... (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
196 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's really not in the most current models.

And it's already at present incredibly advanced in research.

The bigger issue is abstract reasoning that necessitates nonlinear representations - things like Sodoku, where exploring a solution requires updating the conditions and pursuing multiple paths to a solution. This can be achieved with multiple calls, but doing it in a single process is currently a fool's errand and likely will be until a shift to future architectures.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm referring to models that understand language and semantics, such as LLMs.

Other models that are specifically trained can't do what it can, but they can perform math.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

The linked research is about LLMs. The opening of the abstract of the paper:

In recent years, large language models have greatly improved in their ability to perform complex multi-step reasoning. However, even state-of-the-art models still regularly produce logical mistakes. To train more reliable models, we can turn either to outcome supervision, which provides feedback for a final result, or process supervision, which provides feedback for each intermediate reasoning step. Given the importance of training reliable models, and given the high cost of human feedback, it is important to carefully compare the both methods. Recent work has already begun this comparison, but many questions still remain. We conduct our own investigation, finding that process supervision significantly outperforms outcome supervision for training models to solve problems from the challenging MATH dataset. Our process-supervised model solves 78% of problems from a representative subset of the MATH test set. Additionally, we show that active learning significantly improves the efficacy of process supervision.