Yes, I think that GPT-1 turning to GPT-2 and GPT-3 is the thing that is analogous with building brains out of new combinations of dna. Having an instance of GPT-3 to hone its weights and a single brain cutting and forming its connections are comparable. When doing fermi-estimates getting the ballpark wrong is pretty fatal as it is in the core of the activity. With that much conceptual confusion going on I don’t care about the numbers. To claim that other are making mistakes and not surviving a cursory look does not bode well for convincingness. I don’t care to get lured by pretty graphs to think my ignorance is more informed than it is.
If I know that the researches looks at the data until they find a correlation with p>0.05 that they found someting is not really significant news. Similarly if you keeping changing your viewpoint until you find an angle where orderings seem to reverse its less convincing that this one viewpoint is the one that matters.
Economically I would be interested in ability to change electricity to sugar and sugar to electricity. But because the end product is not the same the processes are not nearly economically interchangable. Go a long way in this direction and you measure everything in dollars. But typically when we care to specify that we care about energy efficiency and not example time efficiency we are going for more dimensions and more considerations rather than less.
To set terminology so that if gas prices go up then the energy efficiency of everything that uses gas goes down does not seem handy to me.
Yes, I think that GPT-1 turning to GPT-2 and GPT-3 is the thing that is analogous with building brains out of new combinations of dna. Having an instance of GPT-3 to hone its weights and a single brain cutting and forming its connections are comparable. When doing fermi-estimates getting the ballpark wrong is pretty fatal as it is in the core of the activity. With that much conceptual confusion going on I don’t care about the numbers. To claim that other are making mistakes and not surviving a cursory look does not bode well for convincingness. I don’t care to get lured by pretty graphs to think my ignorance is more informed than it is.
If I know that the researches looks at the data until they find a correlation with p>0.05 that they found someting is not really significant news. Similarly if you keeping changing your viewpoint until you find an angle where orderings seem to reverse its less convincing that this one viewpoint is the one that matters.
Economically I would be interested in ability to change electricity to sugar and sugar to electricity. But because the end product is not the same the processes are not nearly economically interchangable. Go a long way in this direction and you measure everything in dollars. But typically when we care to specify that we care about energy efficiency and not example time efficiency we are going for more dimensions and more considerations rather than less.
To set terminology so that if gas prices go up then the energy efficiency of everything that uses gas goes down does not seem handy to me.