This sounds backwards to me. The fact that I can show you a law book and you will be able to pass a law exam is a consequence of you being "generally intelligent". If I show these books to something less intelligent like a cow, or less general, like a CNN, they won't be able to do that.
no, you're not understanding me. I'm not making any claim on whether they're any good at those subjects, merely that they are, objectively, trained on them
What is the relevance of this claim on its own if training on something alone is not sufficient for them to practice law, and you actually have to add cross-domain into picture for it to work, making it "general"?
I still disagree though, they are not trained to practice law. They are trained to remember law, but practice come from general training to follow instructions.
Comments
I mean, it a very literal sense, it is. Chemistry and law textbooks are in the training corpus. It is trained on these
This sounds backwards to me. The fact that I can show you a law book and you will be able to pass a law exam is a consequence of you being "generally intelligent". If I show these books to something less intelligent like a cow, or less general, like a CNN, they won't be able to do that.
no, you're not understanding me. I'm not making any claim on whether they're any good at those subjects, merely that they are, objectively, trained on them
What is the relevance of this claim on its own if training on something alone is not sufficient for them to practice law, and you actually have to add cross-domain into picture for it to work, making it "general"?
I still disagree though, they are not trained to practice law. They are trained to remember law, but practice come from general training to follow instructions.