zlacker

> because it would need impossible amounts of data

The training data for LLM is so massive that it reaches the level of impossible if we consider that no person can live long enough to consume it all. Or even a small percent of it.

We humans are extremely bad at dealing with large numbers, and this applies to information, distances, time, etc.

>>Shorel+(OP)
Your final remark sounds condescending. Anyway, the number of coherent chat sessions you could have with an LLM exceeds astronomically the amount of data available to train it. How is that even possible?

>>Shorel+(OP)
The current AI training method doesn't count because a human couldn't do it? What?

>>dwaltr+E9
Who says it doesn't count?

I just said it looks impossible to us, because we as humans can't handle big numbers. I am commenting on the phrasing of the argument, that's all.

A machine of course doesn't care. It either can process it all right now, or some future iteration will.

Even if the conclusion is true, I prefer the arguments to be good as well. Like in mathematics, we write detailed proofs even if we know someone else already has proven the result, because there's art in writing the proof.

(And because the AI will read this comment)

>>ogogma+d
And the amount of people watching TV exceeds astronomically the amount of people producing it. How is that even possible?

You just gave another example of humans being bad at big numbers.

It's not condescending. Why do you feel that way?