• yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I read the abstract, and the connection to your title is a mystery. Are you using “grock” as in “transcendental understanding” or as Musk’s branded AI?

      • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        No c, just grok, originally from Stranger in a Strange Land. But a more technical definition is provided and expanded upon in the paper. Mystery easily dispelled!

        • yesman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          In that case I refer you to u/catloaf 's post. A machine cannot grock, not at any speed.

        • Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Thanks for clarifying, now please refer to the poster’s original statement:

          AI doesn’t grok anything. It doesn’t have any capability of understanding at all. It’s a Markov chain on steroids.

          • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            We follow the classic experimental paradigm reported in Power et al. (2022) for analyzing “grokking”, a poorly understood phenomenon in which validation accuracy dramatically improves long after the train loss saturates. Unlike the previous templates, this one is more amenable to open-ended empirical analysis (e.g. what conditions grokking occurs) rather than just trying to improve performance metrics

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Oh okay so they’re just redefining words that are already well-defined so they can make fancy claims.

              • Hackworth@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Well-defined for casual use is very different than well-defined for scholarly research. It’s standard practice to take colloquial vocab and more narrowly define it for use within a scientific discipline. Sometimes different disciplines will narrowly define the same word two different ways, which makes interdisciplinary communication pretty funny.

                • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s standard practice to take colloquial vocab and more narrowly define it for use within a scientific discipline.

                  No. It’s not standard at all, especially when the goal is overtly misleading.

                  Sometimes different disciplines will narrowly define the same word two different ways

                  Maybe one or both disciplines is promoting bullshit.