←back to thread

184 points hhs | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.477s | source | bottom
1. Havoc ◴[] No.41840605[source]
Surprised by the negativity here. A 7B class model +- doubles gpt4 score and everyone goes “meh”?!?
replies(3): >>41840709 #>>41840878 #>>41853200 #
2. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.41840709[source]
The attitude that HN on the whole has towards AI is what you would expect from an existential threat to a very high paying career.
replies(1): >>41843101 #
3. lmeyerov ◴[] No.41840878[source]
I was excited for that headline, but I didn't get a clear & fair sense of comparison, like how prompt engineered etc was the comparison, or a false comparison?

There was not enough detail to determine what was ultimately useful & truly better, if anything. So lessons learned near useless. Likewise, I could not tell how useful the fine-tuning was and why, vs basic other tricks that would avoid all this complexity. The work seems good, but I found almost no scientific value in the experimentation and reporting. So I can't comment because there is little to comment on that I normally would. We focus more on the coding & analysis side, logical QA on fuzzier questions, so I am genuinely curious, supportive, am informed, etc, but left frustrated and wanting my time back.

4. danpalmer ◴[] No.41843101[source]
I've seen broadly 2 attitudes: a refusal to accept AI as an existential threat to a high paying career, and a belief that AI is an existential threat to a high paying career.

As with most things in life, the truth is likely somewhere boring in the middle.

replies(1): >>41844915 #
5. llm_trw ◴[] No.41844915{3}[source]
Option 3 anyone who can add Ai to their career with be even more highly paid because of the productivity boost.
6. rightbyte ◴[] No.41853200[source]
"Deepseek" gets very little hype here for some reason. There is this Deepseek Coder llm model, that was comparable to others at the time and could run locally. Like, zero hype.