Could you please explain why? It's an additive update to the weights, adding an outer product of a vector with its transpose, which must have rank 1. What am I missing?
Classifying something as a textbook whataboutism is typically itself a rhetorical fallacy. It is rare for it to be used in the sense of identifying a real problem. Normally when it gets invoked someone has an argument, often a reasonable one, and someone else wants to pretend it isn't a valid but can't come up with a logical inconsistency.
In this case nxm's comment has formal problems - it is just irrelevant. True or not, it doesn't justify mowing down cyclists.
I’m a professional theoretical physicist in my 40s and I never thought the day would come that I would realize I became shit at mental math. I can do quantum physics in my head but don’t ask me to add 17 to 34
I've also noticed that I drive more slowly/defensively, if only because I need more time to react to all these other bad drivers =P
You won't catch me (nor any of my brilliant brothers) doing math without a calculator... and I got a SAT790Math way-back-when (do they still score that way? I missed one question, only; many of my brothers scored 750+).
I’ve tried to keep up with “best practices” around AI use, but things are improving so quickly that I’ve largely given up. The vanilla agents are just fine for my needs as they come.
I don't think this argument is a good one though, as it would be quite natural for a lab rhat want to macimize the performance of their model on the pelican bench to train it for “text-to-svg simple image generation” rather than just “pelicans on bicycle”.
That is the point though, if labs are maximizing svg image generation capabilities it is a very good thing. That's a general skill that is useful. So assuming they aren't specifically maximizing pelican bicycle svgs (and it doesn't look like they are) then incentives are aligned that the "benchmark" is measuring a general desirable capability.
reply