* Rudolf Adamkovič <rud...@adamkovic.org> [2025-05-15 11:45]: > That is true for all human inventions as well. In natural sciences, for > example, nature is the automated evaluator. In formal sciences, it can > be a proof solver, a computer, or a library of theorems. LLMs need to > access some ground truth to innovate. So what? Newton and Galileo did > too. Does that make discoveries not innovative? Of course not.
Okay thanks for thinking about it. When you say "LLMs need to access some ground truth to innovate..." you are talking like those are some kind of living entities, while in reality it is just bunch of vectors in a place, doing nothing without software program. How could any LLM even know what is the ground truth? Programmer must somehow give input and define those vector types of ground truth. And you said that there are some discoveries, I only wish to know which? I am still doing the research, but cannot find new discoveries. > But, such reasoning does not apply in this thread, because the meaning > of the term innovative is left undefined and keeps changing, while the > final answer remains fixed to Innovation - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation ISO TC 279 in the standard ISO 56000:2020 defines innovation as "a new or changed entity, realizing or redistributing value". Definition of innovation is well defined and international standard. If you don't know definition of it, or doesn't accept what the world accept, then of course you will argue about it as in your individual definition you will find how it works, but the world wouldn't approve of it. > "there is no example of innovation by the LLM". > > Well then, that is the answer, no matter what. So far... we all want that change to come. Even if not the LLM, be it some other form of the computing, I would like to see truly new innovations. -- Jean Louis --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
