undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthegrim3310mo ago0 comments

To play devil's advocate, how is your argument not a 'no true scottsman' argument? As in, "oh, they had a negative view of X, well that's of course because they weren't testing the new and improved X2 model which is different". Fast forward a year .. "Oh, they have a negative view on X2, well silly them, they need to be using the Y24 model, that's where it's at, the X2 model isn't good anymore". Fast forward a year .. ad infinitum.

Are the models that exist today a "true scottsman" for you?

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

xwowsersx10mo ago

It's not a No True Scotsman. That fallacy redefines the group to dismiss counterexamples. The point here is different: when the thing itself keeps changing, evidence from older versions naturally goes stale. Criticisms of GPT-3.5 don't necessarily hold against GPT-4, just like reviews of Windows XP don't apply to Windows 11.

2 more replies

vlovich12310mo ago

How is that different than the models today are actually usable for non trivial things and more capable than yesterdays and it’s also true that tomorrow’s models will also probably be more capable than today’s?

For example, I dismissed AI three years ago because it couldn’t do anything I needed it to. Today I use it for certain things and it’s not quite capable of other things. Tomorrow it might be capable of a lot more.

Yes, priors have to be updated when the ground truth changes and the capabilities of AI change rapidly. This is how chess engines on supercomputers were competitive in the 90s then hybrid systems became the leading edge competitive and then machines took over for good and never looked back.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse