It's Luna, their small, low-intelligence model. But still impressive to see.
I also found this screenshot on Reddit:
The model spent 26 seconds for some reason 🤔
Welcome to LocalLLaMA! Here we discuss running and developing machine learning models at home. Lets explore cutting edge open source neural network technology together.
Get support from the community! Ask questions, share prompts, discuss benchmarks, get hyped at the latest and greatest model releases! Enjoy talking about our awesome hobby.
As ambassadors of the self-hosting machine learning community, we strive to support each other and share our enthusiasm in a positive constructive way.
Rules:
Rule 1 - No harassment or personal character attacks of community members. I.E no namecalling, no generalizing entire groups of people that make up our community, no baseless personal insults.
Rule 2 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning models to cryptocurrency. I.E no comparing the usefulness of models to that of NFTs, no comparing the resource usage required to train a model is anything close to maintaining a blockchain/ mining for crypto, no implying its just a fad/bubble that will leave people with nothing of value when it burst.
Rule 3 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning to simple text prediction algorithms. I.E statements such as "llms are basically just simple text predictions like what your phone keyboard autocorrect uses, and they're still using the same algorithms since <over 10 years ago>.
Rule 4 - No implying that models are devoid of purpose or potential for enriching peoples lives.
Kind of but not really. AIs learn to predict text but they can't really do math the traditional way. They learn the tokens, which are more than syllables and less than a word long. So because they don't do math, LLMs in particular speculate "something like 3 comes after this question" because in training it has seen similar questions answered with "3". That's the jist of it.
Your generalization, you see, doesn't apply to what "Qwen27b" did here above, right ?
It doesn't. I wouldn't say I made a generalization but a very high level explanation so it's easier to understand for non-tech people.
I suspect modern models are trained specifically on these kinds of questions to spare the embarrassment of this question for future models.
that does mean they stochastically understand the occurrence of other numbers for this question and if you wrote tokens similar to this it would answer with 4 or whatever the specific case. I'm just trying to explain that no matter whether it gets it right or wrong, it goes off of statistics and semantics, not math. Because these things are not made to do math, that's what algorithms are for, and we know very well how to write them.
Yes he's talking about why chatgpt failed the task