//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfilePosts







Loading...
New blogpost: We Don't Understand Neural Networks At The Algorithmic Level kripken.github.io/blog/neurosc... So, why is this even a question? Don't scientists agree on whether we understand LLMs?
1d
We Don't Understand Neural Networks At The Algorithmic Level
The largest ongoing debate about AI is “Are Large Language Models (LLMs) intelligent?” That makes sense, at least: the evidence is ambiguous and the stakes a...
kripken.github.io
A. H. Zakai
This preprint makes the "we *do* understand LLMs" case better than I've ever seen it. But, while they are right on many things, a lot remains that we don't understand. My post tries to explain what exactly is missing and why their arguments don't address it. Here are my three main points:
1d