Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes: > [...] that answer is not innovative.
Thank you for the explanation. I think I now see what you mean. In that case, we are simply talking about two different topics. I stated that large language models can solve never-seen instances of a problem. That is, the model has seen the problem in the training set but not the particular instance in the test set. I use the terms (1) problem, (2) problem instance, (3) training set, (4) test set, per their standard, precise, mathematical definitions. I said nothing more and nothing less, and with the standard terminology, my statement holds true, as can be trivially demonstrated, and as I explained. Now to your views. As for "innovation" and "true invention", I have nothing to say to that end. In fact, I have no idea what what those terms mean, if we were to measure. I have the same issue with the linked GNU article on "artificial intelligence". So, I think the TLDR is: My *narrow* statement was true, and you are taking a *wider* view. Thank you again for taking the time to explain your view to me! Rudy -- "If you're thinking without writing, you only think you're thinking." --- Leslie Lamport Rudolf Adamkovič <rud...@adamkovic.org> [he/him] http://adamkovic.org --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
