Let's take a first look at the new ChatGPT o1 model - a state-of-the-art reasoning AI model from OpenAI that shows unmatched abilities in math, science, and coding.
Most adults can also learn to code, if they actually tried. If you’re gonna add the argument that most people can’t code proficiently, most people can’t drive proficiently, either.
Also, driving and coding are completely different set of skills that it’s kinda worthless to compare them. Some people can code just fine but might never learn how to drive because they didn’t need to, so to consider driving as a prerequisite skill to coding doesn’t make sense.
Well I think you’re wrong here, and about any adult can learn how to drive, but only a small subset can learn how to code. Not learning how to throw a simple script together, real codeing.
Coding is engineer level, engineers build cars, they dont only drive them. For me the difference is the same between a developer of a software and the user of said soft.
One it way way way more complicated, and IA is supposed to do that “soon” when it can’t even drive a car.
I think you’re completely wrong by still comparing skills that have no relation to each other. What’s the similarity between driving and coding that would require an LLM to be need to do one before you can believe it can do the other? Explain that leap in logic properly before you continue with your argument.
An LLM is designed to output text. Expecting them to drive to prove their ability to output code is like expecting them to dance to prove their ability to produce poems. It’s inability to do an unrelated skill has no bearing on it’s ability to do a different one. You’re basically judging a fish on its ability to walk on land, and using that as the basis to judge its ability to swim.
What does that even mean? Neural networks have varying levels of complexity, even within the same technology. Even the same LLM model can have different number of tokens that differentiate the complexity of their operation.
So instead of using a neural network that is designed to input and output text and making it learn to output coding, which is also text, you think it’s supposed to be easier for them to make it instead analyse various video and audio input from multiple cameras, and then output the various actions that is required for it to drive a car?
Does that make sense to you?
They’re all based on the same tech, text, images whatever is just raw bytes. Train it for turning left, detect cats or whatever, same battle. It’s just harder when the problem is complicated like driving, and more so when programming.
Sure, make it drive a car first, a thing 99% of the population can do before attempt coding ^^
Coding is actually quile complicated, especially in old existing codebases. Add that they train them on any crap code they can find…
No way are you going to convince me 99% of the population can drive. Go get a more accurate statistics before trying to use it to dismiss something.
It’s an example, and most adults (if I have to explicit it) can drive, or can learn how to.
Coding not so much.
So AI that can’t even drive, can code suddenly? I don’t think so.
Better like that?
Most adults can also learn to code, if they actually tried. If you’re gonna add the argument that most people can’t code proficiently, most people can’t drive proficiently, either.
Also, driving and coding are completely different set of skills that it’s kinda worthless to compare them. Some people can code just fine but might never learn how to drive because they didn’t need to, so to consider driving as a prerequisite skill to coding doesn’t make sense.
Well I think you’re wrong here, and about any adult can learn how to drive, but only a small subset can learn how to code. Not learning how to throw a simple script together, real codeing.
Coding is engineer level, engineers build cars, they dont only drive them. For me the difference is the same between a developer of a software and the user of said soft.
One it way way way more complicated, and IA is supposed to do that “soon” when it can’t even drive a car.
Nah, not happening any time soon.
I think you’re completely wrong by still comparing skills that have no relation to each other. What’s the similarity between driving and coding that would require an LLM to be need to do one before you can believe it can do the other? Explain that leap in logic properly before you continue with your argument.
An LLM is designed to output text. Expecting them to drive to prove their ability to output code is like expecting them to dance to prove their ability to produce poems. It’s inability to do an unrelated skill has no bearing on it’s ability to do a different one. You’re basically judging a fish on its ability to walk on land, and using that as the basis to judge its ability to swim.
Neural networks are quite similar in complexity, whatever they output.
Driving is way less complex than programming.
What does that even mean? Neural networks have varying levels of complexity, even within the same technology. Even the same LLM model can have different number of tokens that differentiate the complexity of their operation.
So instead of using a neural network that is designed to input and output text and making it learn to output coding, which is also text, you think it’s supposed to be easier for them to make it instead analyse various video and audio input from multiple cameras, and then output the various actions that is required for it to drive a car? Does that make sense to you?
They’re all based on the same tech, text, images whatever is just raw bytes. Train it for turning left, detect cats or whatever, same battle. It’s just harder when the problem is complicated like driving, and more so when programming.