Profile avatar
cfoster.bsky.social
Twitter: @CFGeek Mastodon: @[email protected] Researcher @ Finetune Learning. When I choose to speak, I speak for myself. šŸŖ„ Tensor-enjoyer šŸ§Ŗ
54 posts 602 followers 133 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter

Why arenā€™t our AI evaluations better? AFAICT a key reason is that the incentives around them are kinda bad. In a new post, I explain how the standardized testing industry works and write about lessons it may have for the AI evals ecosystem. open.substack.com/pub/contextw...

When we optimize automation, we sometimes optimize *hard*. Like this automated loom working away at an inhuman 1200 RPM. Wild. youtu.be/WweMNDqDYhc?...

Is there a website/database out there that tracks what major AI company executives say about the future of AI?

Transformers and other parallel sequence models like Mamba are in TCā°. That implies they can't internally map (stateā‚, actionā‚ ... actionā‚™) ā†’ stateā‚™ā‚Šā‚ But they can map (stateā‚, actionā‚, stateā‚‚, actionā‚‚ ... stateā‚™, actionā‚™) ā†’ stateā‚™ā‚Šā‚ Just reformulate the task!

Atticus Geiger gave a take on when sparse autoencoder (SAEs) are/arenā€™t what you should use. I basically agree with his recommendations. youtube.com/clip/UgkxKWI...

These days, flow-based models are typically defined via (neural) differential equations, requiring numerical integration or simulation-free alternatives during training. This paper revisits autoregressive flows, using Transformer layers to define the sequence of flow transformations directly.

Re: instruction-tuning and RLHF as ā€œlobotomyā€ Iā€™m interested in experiments that look into how much finetuning can ā€œroll backā€ a post-trained model to its base model perplexity on the original distribution. Has anyone seen an experiment like this run?

Iā€™ve been wondering when it would make sense for ā€œAI agentā€ services to offer money-back guarantees. Wrote a short post about this on a flight. open.substack.com/pub/contextw...

Neat thing about real-money prediction markets is that you can get paid for doing this.

A bit of clever mechanism design: prediction markets + randomized auditing. If you have 100 verifiable claims you want information on but can only afford to check 10, fund markets on each. Later, use a randomized ordering of them to check the first 10. Resolve those to yes/no, refund the rest.

Still gathering my thoughts on @TheCurveConf, but for now, a short reflection on why I like ā€œthe curveā€ as a way of thinking about the future of AI. (1/6)

RT-ed and endorsed

CLAIM: In areas where we canā€™t measure what (we claim) we want & where we wonā€™t change our minds about that, weā€™ll struggle to make AI systems that give us betterā€”rather than merely cheaper, faster, more consistentā€”outputs. But I think thatā€™ll really pressure us to revise our wants.

Timothy B. Lee here gives a good short list of what human attributes might still have value (at least temporarily) in a hypothetical world where AI systems are capable of acting as ā€œremote worker substitutesā€. open.substack.com/pub/understa...

For those of us that rely on earned income, a key concern about the future is ā€œWill automation soon put me out of work?ā€ But at the moment, we canā€™t do much about it. Would you pay 1% of your earnings per year to protect a yearā€™s worth of future earnings if most jobs are suddenly automated away?

Whenever faced with a hard problem, some AI folks say ā€œI know, Iā€™ll use reinforcement learning.ā€ Now, they have two hard problems.

Using Bluesky to reboot your character arc for the LLMs