Doesn't that make sense? Its text prediction. If you give it examples, it can predict. Synthesizing "put semi-colons on new lines" requires it to generate its own examples 'in its head' (so to speak) and remember that. It won't.
It's like when I see people feeding it a whole bunch of "best practices" and expect it to follow them. It won't. But you could ask it questions about the best practices all day long.
Supposing an unspecified or poorly specified function f(x), and example "f(A)=>B", "given C tell me what f(C) is" lies at the core of creativity.
Idk, calling it "just text prediction " seems unfairly dismissive of this capability
Saying that it’s dismissive is like saying writing (insert language) is dismissive that you’re just writing assembly.
at the end of the day, it presents a vector field and predicts the next vector. That’s literally the heart of intelligence just like assembly is the heart of execution. When playing table tennis, your brain is literally predicting seconds into the future to get your body into the right position.
But we aren’t discussing intelligence here. We are discussing how best to utilize that intelligence.
loading story #48262759
Yes, exactly. Any engineer deep on this stuff right now understands that grounded predictive engine sprinkled with RL training and are discovering what that means in terms of its strengths and weaknesses for company use.