They use the word "emergent" to mean: not present in small models but is present in large models
I don't like that term, because it implies something deeper, so people immediately misinterpret this kind of information.
(Just read this thread.)
I don't like that term, because it implies something deeper, so people immediately misinterpret this kind of information.
(Just read this thread.)
Almost every discussion I've read in philosophy over emergence is tedious and hard to see any use, whereas in physics it's intuitive and descriptively useful. My sense is that it's better to follow the physics style and stress there's no metaphysics implied.
No, if you had read even the first paragraph of the article, you'd have seen that the person you're responding to isn't "interpreting" the article, they're quoting the article.
Don't correct people when you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't read the article so you're in no position to talk about the article.
This is the level of discussion I've come to expect from Hacker News, unfortunately.
models are taken (because there is no other way) as black boxes and the only comparison is made between the models not between a model and it's subsystems (because again noone knows the "sub-systems" of a model, those are just some derived weights that can not be ascribed any meaning). this is precisly the 2Mpx camera and the 12Mbpix camera comparison not the fluid dynamics vs particle movements comparison.
This also makes clear its relative nature (that is, what "large" and "small" mean), which the use of the word "emergent" obscures.
I think they're using emergent for a different category of things - still things that a small model couldn't do, but specifically which a large model can just do without any of the work we thought we'd have to do for that ability.
Or at least, that's how I see emergent being a useful term, both in a behavior and a value context.