News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on NanoGPT. Parent comment

Re:NanoGPT by naasking on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @08:44AM (#34338326)
These are conceptual "differences" that don't actually explain the mechanics of what's going on. For all you know "motivation", "intentions", etc. are also just GPT-like subsystems, in which case the underlying mechanics are not as different as you imply.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NanoGPT by mensetmanusman on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @09:37AM (#34338909)
If it were gpt-like sub systems, humans would be emitting MWs of power instead of the 100W now.

Whatever humans have it is many orders of magnitude better…

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NanoGPT by naasking on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @09:52AM (#34339046)
Or biology evolved a better way to do the same or similar enough computation that we simply haven't yet discovered.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NanoGPT by ben_w on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @10:16AM (#34339332)
That's the hardware it runs on, not the software architecture of GPT. I could equally say that transistors are faster than synapses by the same ratio that marathon runners are faster than continental drift.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NanoGPT by ImHereToVote on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @09:18AM (#34338720)
Emotion is just "spiritual" word for a utility function. Or terminal goal to be more precise.
[ Parent | on HN ]