• yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    26 days ago

    I read the abstract, and the connection to your title is a mystery. Are you using “grock” as in “transcendental understanding” or as Musk’s branded AI?

    • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      26 days ago

      No c, just grok, originally from Stranger in a Strange Land. But a more technical definition is provided and expanded upon in the paper. Mystery easily dispelled!

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        26 days ago

        In that case I refer you to u/catloaf 's post. A machine cannot grock, not at any speed.

      • Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        26 days ago

        Thanks for clarifying, now please refer to the poster’s original statement:

        AI doesn’t grok anything. It doesn’t have any capability of understanding at all. It’s a Markov chain on steroids.

        • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          26 days ago

          We follow the classic experimental paradigm reported in Power et al. (2022) for analyzing “grokking”, a poorly understood phenomenon in which validation accuracy dramatically improves long after the train loss saturates. Unlike the previous templates, this one is more amenable to open-ended empirical analysis (e.g. what conditions grokking occurs) rather than just trying to improve performance metrics

          • catloaf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            26 days ago

            Oh okay so they’re just redefining words that are already well-defined so they can make fancy claims.

            • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              26 days ago

              Well-defined for casual use is very different than well-defined for scholarly research. It’s standard practice to take colloquial vocab and more narrowly define it for use within a scientific discipline. Sometimes different disciplines will narrowly define the same word two different ways, which makes interdisciplinary communication pretty funny.