←back to thread

Grok 3: Another win for the bitter lesson

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
129 points kiyanwang | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.232s | source
Show context
bambax ◴[] No.43112611[source]
This article is weak and just general speculation.

Many people doubt the actual performance of Grok 3 and suspect it has been specifically trained on the benchmarks. And Sabine Hossenfelder says this:

> Asked Grok 3 to explain Bell's theorem. It gets it wrong just like all other LLMs I have asked because it just repeats confused stuff that has been written elsewhere rather than looking at the actual theorem.

https://x.com/skdh/status/1892432032644354192

Which shows that "massive scaling", even enormous, gigantic scaling, doesn't improve intelligence one bit; it improves scope, maybe, or flexibility, or coverage, or something, but not "intelligence".

replies(7): >>43112886 #>>43112908 #>>43113270 #>>43113312 #>>43113843 #>>43114290 #>>43115189 #
cardanome ◴[] No.43113843[source]
> Sabine Hossenfelder

She really needs to stop commenting on topics outside of theoretical physics.

Even in physics she does not represent the scientific consensus but has some very questionable fringe beliefs like labeling whole sub-fields as "scams to get funding".

She regularly speaks with "scientific authority" about topics she barely knows anything about.

Her video on autism is considered super harmful and misleading by actual autistic people. She also thinks she is an expert on trans-issues and climate change. And I doubt she know enough about artificial intelligence and computer science to comment on LLMs.

replies(8): >>43113905 #>>43114246 #>>43114537 #>>43115760 #>>43116614 #>>43116644 #>>43117944 #>>43121775 #
1. netbioserror ◴[] No.43117944[source]
Based on what I've seen of Sabine, virtually all of this post is lies. She regularly positions herself as an outside skeptic and critic. Do you have any examples or her claiming authority or representing consensus?