I don’t want to sound condescending, but I get the impression that a lot of anti-AI people treat computing like some kind of magic and developers like wizards. What I’m saying isn’t some niche topic. I’m a developer, but I don’t work in AI. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand: you can create a model with a program, and it isn’t a developer who wrote the model by hand, line by line.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
i remember another person saying its "code", here were my arguments:
"No not really, Image gen requires training, and outputs stochastic things. You can't just code in specific weights in the neural network, you don't know what number works and what doesn't. Algorithmic code is different."
"Yes, I think I do know what I'm talking about, considering I actually studied how these things work. Wouldn't be confident about you.
They are trained on data, they are not deterministic algorithms that work like a Python script. You can't "code in" neural network training. They get their weights after putting in data, using things like optimizers (which are stochastic, such as AdamW) and backpropagation, which let them get all these weight numbers at the end of training.
This is different from a script or code."
"first, its "code", not "a code".
It's a dataset, weights are a dataset that were obtained from training. Code is instructions to tell a computer to do something. Weights are just a bunch of numbers. An architecture (like diffusion or transformer) is then applied to said weights to make the model run. That part is the code.
I was gonna go for "just atoms", but that applies to everything we know about. And like I said, it's not a good way to put it- it's weird, it's reductive, it's honestly a bit of an insult, and it's only "true" by technicality.
this is like saying that an mp3 or a photo is just code. not every string is code. a model is an array of numbers. its data and the software that generates it is the code.
you can take a piece of code and actually read it and understand what that set of instructions does. you cant do that with a list of floating point numbers.
or actually to be more precise, because sometimes there are minified, compiled, obfuscated code, binaries etc you cant really read, the code is whats being executed, the data- whether its a model or an mp3 - is the thing that the code operates on
Also conventionally "code" in the context of computers refers to some symbolic programming language, not just any bunch of data. But people often do be redefining established terms willy-nilly whenever it suits their purpose.
This isn’t a debate about semantics. This is clearly a case of misunderstanding. What sits at the heart of AI isn’t code. It’s a matrix. A matrix isn’t code, it’s a sequence of values.
It's still semantics ... you're kinda using wrong or unclear terminology in regards to ML (ML can be just code, depends on what exactly which you later try to clear up "depends on which type of AI").
And if you dig deep at the end there is always a program. The LLM is running on code/a program as in a fixed set on instructions. The generation layer of the LLM (the inference) is non-deterministic and the sum of the function of the weights, in that regard you are right, it's not code/a program. But the framework the LLM is running in is.
So you two are just talking past each other as you're drawing the line about what you talk differently based on the terminology used.
Could have been cleared up easily, but communication is sometimes hard.
I can only go from what you've shared initially. It's a communications issue between you two.
I don't know what sense there is to analyse every interaction you have on reddit to help you to communicate to people. I can offer you a coaching if you want.
No of your shared screenshots are in any way invalidating what I've said before.
No, what you’re saying is factually wrong. I talked about deterministic AI to distinguish it from generative AI. When people talk about AI-generated images or AI-generated text, they’re talking about generative AI, not deterministic AI.
And if you say generative AI is “code,” that’s because you haven’t understood what AI is. Yes, you use code to write the program that creates the model and the program that reads it — but the AI itself was never coded. Saying it’s code implies that I, as a developer, wrote a giant pile of if/else statements so the machine would draw a bunch of lines that look like a dog when the user types the word “dog.” That’s not what happens.
Saying it’s code means you haven’t understood what machine learning is.
Saying AI is code because it needs software made of code to run is like saying the human body is air and water because it mainly needs air and water to function.
Some do really think it's "just code", because they don't grasp what machine learning is.
They think that humans wrote some long, very convoluted bunch of "if/then/else" statements which draw from a big database of text or images somewhere. I have literally seen people on this sub say that.
Of course, this is just flat-out, plain, wrong in every way. The model contains no code, just trillions of inscrutable interconnected numbers that no human can ever interpret. There are no computer instructions in it, and there is no database of words or images anywhere. (To get an answer from that model, sure, you need about 20 lines of matrix multiplication math that a comp sci freshman could write, and no if/else statements or database at all.)
Others, however, think that the fact that it runs on a computer means it's not intelligent. In other words, they believe that human brain cells are magic. It makes them very uncomfortable to think that the lossy, low-quality stochastic predictive computation that happens in the brain is somehow "special" and that if a neuron gets excited by its inputs to exceed a threshold value, causing it to fire, that some wooo magical thinking soul thing happens - but not when the exact same computation is performed on silicon.
This is where philosophers just go "I'll need a stiff drink".
These people could really do with just messing with local models to understand it - there is no code within AI, it is a big (8-130GB) table of decimal numbers, called the weights, which are organised into structures that mimic our brains neurons. You can open them up and look at the numbers and see there's no code there. You do need code to load them up and have them receive and output text, but that's only four lines of python - it's not the bit doing anything.
Somehow these decimal numbers contain information on everything, can draw art, and solve frontier math problems - almost like they are intelligence itself. They are Made of Weights
Yeah it's what I'd probably just call a software program. A database with coding to then actually do the actions (so the input / output of a chatbot etc).
If you want to boil it all down, everything is code. We live in a deterministic universe. Well, insofar as we ignore the noise of quantum randomness. Brains receive sensory input, physics and chemistry happen in a deterministic way as they always do, and you get an output of some thought or action.
We are meatbots. I don't choose to get hungry or tired. I can't forget that embarrassing thing I said in 8th grade when I'm almost asleep and it wakes me up. It's just my operating system.
Ai's are kinda like compilers tho, they code the first and the compilers is the most responsible in the process of making the others. One women made the first compiler when coding were physical, from that on it became easier to translate speach to machine
I don't quite follow. No one has even mentioned simulation here. The post you linked to is from 2017 and doesn't seem particularly relevant or illuminating. This sounds more like one of those "AI art isn't art" type semantic fixations or maybe just confusing neural networks with symbolic artificial intelligence?
For me, simulation is something mathematically modeled to closely resemble the thing it's simulating. According to MIT it's "Modeled loosely" This doesn't fit that definition.
From 2025, unless you have another source showing they now use some other architecture that does simulate a brain...
When the transformer architecture was introduced in 2017
Brumby-14B-Base, is a retrained variant of Qwen3-14B-Base, one of the leading open-source transformer models.
No code in any of the AI models, you can download one locally and check. Just decimal numbers.
Neurons have many-to-many connections, and then different electrochemical weights which determine paths that are accessed frequently vs rarely. In models this is handled by the weights being decimals and organised into a tensor structure - and it works - a table full of numbers can talk, create art and invent frontier math.
Sure but aren't you describing downloading a database.... But then you need code to actually make it do anything. What's the none code way of triggering the model to actual do an action? It doesn't spontaneously make art, it requires an input request.
the LLMs themselves are not code, they are weights and a blueprint of the architecture, you can do inference yourself using pen and paper, but to make it easier we use code, that doesn't mean that the LLMs are code, code is just a convenient infrastructure we build around them
So, a more technically accurate description of the "code"?
You can open any exe too and guess what's inside them, binary, 0s and 1s. It's technically binary that was code, now compiled, but people know what you mean when you call it code.
It's semantics. It's an algorithm, transformer architecture, model, neural network, floating-points. We can call it "code" or pretend it's a simulation of a brain.
what is the entire section before it genius ? did you even read it ? or was it hard looking math you can't understand so you skipped it ?
The script below implements the calculations performed with the identity activation function.
Its literally just implementing the calculations done by hand up until iteration 2 so it can be done programmatically, the underlying calculations themselves used to train the model are not code and can be performed by hand, the code is just to optimize the process and automate it.
if i use krita to draw something, is the result "code" because I used software to make it ?
lock in
no, my argument is that it's not code, because code has a specific meaning, a deep learning model is a series of matrix multiplication of learned matrices, there is no code involved here except for training them automatically, which is just done to accelerate the process, you can do the whole thing manually, you can also make analog neural networks, what code was involved there ? if you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, why do you insist on arguing?
Yes, a jpg is code, code that tells the monitor how to display it.
is a drawing made in krita and saved as a jpg "code" I mean the drawing itself, not the jpg export ? also jpg is not fucking code, its a file format, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, why do you insist on so confidently arguing with people who do ?
So when I give this model that isn't code some data what is instructing it to give an output if there is no code? The model itself isn't code like an array isn't code, but an array on its own doesn't do anything.
Before exporting it, the drawing is still just data and instructions on how to draw it on screen.
An obj is also a file format. What does this look like?
"mtllib cube.mtl cube.mtl" that's code for use the file "cube.mtl" for the materials.
# Blender v2.76 (sub 0) OBJ File: ''
# www.blender.org
mtllib cube.mtl
o Cube
v 1.000000 -1.000000 -1.000000
v 1.000000 -1.000000 1.000000
v -1.000000 -1.000000 1.000000
v -1.000000 -1.000000 -1.000000
v 1.000000 1.000000 -0.999999
v 0.999999 1.000000 1.000001
v -1.000000 1.000000 1.000000
v -1.000000 1.000000 -1.000000
vt 1.000000 0.333333
vt 1.000000 0.666667
vt 0.666667 0.666667
vt 0.666667 0.333333
vt 0.666667 0.000000
vt 0.000000 0.333333
vt 0.000000 0.000000
vt 0.333333 0.000000
vt 0.333333 1.000000
vt 0.000000 1.000000
vt 0.000000 0.666667
vt 0.333333 0.333333
vt 0.333333 0.666667
vt 1.000000 0.000000
vn 0.000000 -1.000000 0.000000
vn 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000
vn 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000
vn -0.000000 0.000000 1.000000
vn -1.000000 -0.000000 -0.000000
vn 0.000000 0.000000 -1.000000
usemtl Material
s off
f 2/1/1 3/2/1 4/3/1
f 8/1/2 7/4/2 6/5/2
f 5/6/3 6/7/3 2/8/3
f 6/8/4 7/5/4 3/4/4
f 3/9/5 7/10/5 8/11/5
f 1/12/6 4/13/6 8/11/6
f 1/4/1 2/1/1 4/3/1
f 5/14/2 8/1/2 6/5/2
f 1/12/3 5/6/3 2/8/3
f 2/12/4 6/8/4 3/4/4
f 4/13/5 3/9/5 8/11/5
f 5/6/6 1/12/6 8/11/6
the model itself is not code, I never claimed that there was no code involved in running inference on computers, lock in, those are 2 completely different statements.
A deep learning model is a chain of learned matrices,affine transformations and non linear activation functions. these are fundamentally not code, they can be trained manually, without any code, you can run inference manually without any code.
to make it easier, more accessible and more optimized, we use code to train the models and run inference, but the underlying model itself is still the same exact model that can be derived by hand, its still just a set of matrices and affine transformations
an array on its own doesn't do anything.
are you familiar with what matrix multiplication is ? you can matrix multiply the weights yourself and get an output, the model itself does nothing, its just literally just a file of matrices and a blueprint of the model's architecture, that's it.
inference engines built around the model like llama cpp are the "code", and its just to make it faster and more accessible and run on computers, thats it
When yellow in the oop say LLMs are code. Do you think he means the matrices or chatGPT?
the LLM itself IS a bunch of matrices, chat GPT is a product built around those matrices I dont care what they meant, they clearly said AI, LLMs and were responding to someone saying machine learning models, and you yourself keep arguing "it's code"
I doubt your problem with chatgpt is the harness around it, your problem is with the generative transformer based decoder model
Just tell them to get a job and block. Antis are liars at their core. They don't care if what they say is wrong. They say it because they want others to believe it's true, regardless of whether it's true or not. You're not that person's therapist: you can't convince a liar to stop lying.
No one is disputing that training is done via a program made out of code. The issue here is that the model itself isn't code in any traditional sense. A model is just a lot of numbers, there is not a single line of code from any programming language in it.
People don't care about that though. That doesn't mean anything to the average person. And like why should it? When people respond with something like "it's just code" they're not making a technical assessment. That's not the point they're making.
The models aren't code based at all - if they were we'd understand them, but they're a black box because they're just dozens of layers of decimal numbers being multiplied together and producing art and frontier math discoveries somehow.
Knowing how to make them is not the same as knowing how they work - that's not exactly an uncommon thing, there are plenty of industrial processes where we know the recipe to do them consistently, but have no understanding of how the reaction actually work in terms of physics or chemistry. There's a bunch mentioned in the "list of unsolved problems in science" page on Wikipedia.
We know more than we do in 2022 when ChatGPT launched, but back then we really knew nothing about AI models or how they worked.
Those numbers, where did they come from? What makes them multiply and how?
You feed in lots of information and the numbers update from that, just inherently, like they want to learn.
It's basically the neural structure encoding information as memories, and the multiplications are them retrieving them as memories - but we had no idea how memory worked in the brain before, or where in the brain memories were located, so this was all new discoveries (turns out it's spread across the neuron weights rather than in a dedicated structure like the amygdala).
Like what? What other thing do we do but don't understand?
We still don't understand how the iron catalyst works in the Haber-Bosch process which produces fertiliser and is required to keep 6 billion people fed, yet it sustains civilisation!
So we know how to make them, with what? What's being used to make them?
I mean this came from academic research - they wanted to create a digital mind, so looking at the one we had made sense, which gave us the 'neural net' architecture in the 1940s. We didn't have the compute or centralised data to really train them back then, but if you time travelled a datacentre back to WW2 they'd figure it out.
Key breakthrough was the transformer in 2016, which let this stuff be run efficiently on consumer hardware (graphics cards), plus we had the internet which was a ready source of data.
You train them by writing four lines of python code and feeding them your datasets (training), but the python is only really handling the IO, it's not doing anything in the model - you can do this on your own PC, they really are these strange alien minds that your just kind of 'mount' like a network drive to interact with, not like a program at all.
So its numbers that need code to make outputs happen yeah? How is that not a program? And I don't mean in the very technical sense I mean in most people's understanding of what a program is which is mostly "computer code that makes things happen".
So its numbers that need code to make outputs happen yeah? How is that not a program?
The code is just required to interface with the model, like letting it access what's written on the keyboard and write back to the terminal, it's not actually doing anything in the model.
It's possible we might not even need those four lines of code in future - we've gone from models accessing APIs and MCPs to controlling programs directly with keyboard and mouse, those four lines of code could similarly just go away in future with the model figuring out its environment itself.
It's basically in storage form - you need to be on hardware with tensor units to run, in the same way your 'weights' of your neurons need to run on your grey matter and not vegetables or granite.
if I can arrive at the same destination, which is a trained model manually by hand and automatically via code, why would the end result be code ? if I arrive at the same exact matrices, what is the difference?
is a linear regression model code ? if so what code is it, it's literally ax + b, a straight fucking line, what code is there ? you can literally solve it analytically or via back propagation, if at the end you get the same fucking line, why is it a line when solved analytically but code when solved via sklearn or pytorch ?
Genuinely, and with all due respect, do you know what an artificial neural network is, have you ever implemented one yourself, if not where in the actual fuck do you get the confidence to argue with people on their expertise / field?
Im not taking a test here. Why the fuck do you assume i lack basic tech knowledge because i said ai models use code? Just because you can download one as a big table of vectors(which is also code at its core) doesnt mean that using or training one is somehow not related to code. Wtf are you guys on
2 - you can draw using krita, does that mean that the result is code ? you display pngs and jpgs using software, you make it using software, does that mean that the end result itself is "code".
The image of the table and the article you sent describe the underlying mathematics that show how ai models work. I would genuinely love to see you try to get that all to work on a computer without using any code.
I have actually used these principles to program a model before, and i can personally assure you i used code to do it, in case you're still unconvinced
you have no idea what you're talking about, if you had the slightest inkling, you wouldn't call a matrix a fucking table
I would genuinely love to see you try to get that all to work on a computer without using any code.
to use it inside of a computer you need to use code, but the model itself is not code, I have an image i've drawn myself, if I want to use it in my computer I need to scan it and use software to display it on my screen, is the image itself code ? lock in
I have actually used these principles to program a model before, and i can personally assure you i used code to do it, in case you're still unconvinced
I know YOU did, because you don't know what a fucking matrix is, I've manually derived small ANNs myself, you just dont know how to do it.
the person in the article I linked is fucking doing it https://medium.com/@soudanik/building-a-deep-learning-model-by-hand-bd51feccdfc7 you just have to repeat it a couple more times
You know, i was actually going to call it a matrix but rephrased a part of what i wrote.
To use a model in a computer, you need to use code, in your words. Thats pretty much all i was arguing in the first place so calm down. The model isnt code in theory, but the matrices arent stored on clay tablets now are they. Computers use code to store and display data including tables, and yes images. No the image itself in theory isnt code, but since its being displayed on a computer, yes it is. You can look at the way the image is encrypted, and guess what, its code.
And the existance of one person making a physical neural network with a couple layers of like ten neurons is an exception not the rule. I was never arguing it isnt theoretically physically possible to build an llm without running any code.
To use a model in a computer, you need to use code, in your words. Thats pretty much all i was arguing in the first place so calm down
no, thats not what you were arguing
The model isnt code in theory
not just in theory, in real life
but the matrices arent stored on clay tablets now are they
do you understand the difference between code and a file format/data ? if I draw a matrix on pen and paper, and then I save the same matrix in a .npz file, is the matrix itself code ? or is it just stored numerically on my computer as data in a specific file format?
what is the difference between this
def update(self, state):
if state == "hurt":
self.health -= 1
elif state == "healing":
state.health +=1
player.update(state)
Obviously they don't! Are you proud that somebody failed to teach you this shit in high school? And with how long AI is around - nah man, either you are barely out of high school or this is just a huge pile of bullshit.
And I am sorry, but I do this for a living after learning it - at a university, where this was taught way before 2021 - and I am telling you that you are embarrassing yourself.
There's four lines of python to 'mount' the AI and let it start receiving input and producing output from the computer, but none of that can affect anything inside the model, the code isn't really doing anything, the model is doing everything.
This is why downloading local models is incredibly safe, there's no way they can contain malware or anything because there's no code in them.
The code is just there to act as a bridge between the model and the computer environment, it doesn't actually do anything in the model and it can't.
Potentially it could at some point - get them running in a robot without the need to go via firmware, just controlling the body natively in the same way we do through the nervous system?
To get something like that to work, a representation of a digital neural network without running any code, you'd have to build a physical representation of the network (and the robots entire body with no programmable components), something which is currently not being done and is in no way an efficient or worthwhile endeavor. For one thing that would mean that you wouldnt be able to reprogram the robot easily. So yes, ai and robots are going to stay as code for the forseeable future
I don't think you need to build anything, the model could just do it.
It's like how models used to have to interface with programs through APIs or MCP, now Astra can just use mouse and keyboard and vision.
Accessing firmware and sending commands to the motors is the 'APIs or MCPs', but a more naturalistic approach may be possible once they get more advanced.
Then your answer didn't make much sense - why not just point out the model doesn't have "images" in it, like most databases it has values (1's and 0"s right?)
Thing is, he's technically not wrong. There is solely code here. "Just code" is reductive and can be insulting if used wrong, but it's not incorrect. As he put it, there's no muscle, no powder, no nerves, that ordeal.
Soft disagree. There’s a pile of data but the data does absolutely nothing without inference code, and wouldn’t exist at all without scraping, training, and post processing code. Arguably, the most interesting and ingenious part of the whole pipeline that produces the output is the code powering the training process - that’s certainly the part that AI scientists spend the most time talking about.
Most computer programs consist of code and data, AI isn’t magic, it’s code and data like any other program.
Soft disagree. There’s a pile of data but the data does absolutely nothing without inference code, and wouldn’t exist at all without scraping, training, and post processing code.
Soft disagree, you can avoid all of the scraping, training and post processing by just randomising the weights - what you get is an AI model that's still smart and can solve problems, but can't reel off trivia from the internet (like a smart person who hasn't had any formal schooling), they're worse than trained models so no one creates them, but a number of AI startups in 2024 collapsed after it was pointed out that an untrained model was literally better than their trained ones. There's something in the neural net structure that is just inherently intelligent.
And there's nothing for inference other than four lines of Python, which are just letting it interface with the terminal for text input and output. As former OpenAI researcher Ilya Sutskever put it, "the models just want to learn."
Randomizing all the weights will result in gibberish. Feel free to try it on any local model.
Why four? You could put the four in a single wrapper function and call it one. Does not mean that what is being done is simple in terms of the amount of code actually called, as each of those four lines can themselves call hundreds or thousands of lines of code.
It kinda is code though. If you put in something and get something out weather it is gen ai or a dumb python script that does basic math it's still code. You put in data, a set of instructions (code) runs, you get out put. Neural pathways on a computer? Code. "Someone made the code" yeah so did the person who writes the python scripts "oh but it's an algorithm" yeah? So are if and else statements
Put a bunch of numbers in a table. Is that gonna generate you pictures? Cherry picker those numbers. Still no pictures? Well shit ai doesn't exist everyone go home
it depends on what the numbers themselves are, if they came about as the result of optimization of a model for that specific task, then yes they will generate images, the underlying principles of deep learning models and training them are just linear algebra, optimization and probability, programming is just a bonus to optimize / speed up the process, it is not strictly necessary, you can do the whole thing manually yourself, its just very very very time consuming and difficult
According to the original comment it is only those numbers in the table nothing that it gets put through (like code and or an algorithm) how does it know what linear algebra to use? Instructions (kinda exactly what code is)
1 : do you know what code is
2 : what's the difference between code and instructions
3 : are all instructions code ?
4 : is a linear regression model solved analytically "code"
5 : is a linear regression model solved via backpropagation by hand "code"
6 : is a linear regression model solved via backpropagation by sklearn "code"
7: what is a statistical model
8: if I implement the steps to run inference on a statistical model on a computer, does that make the model itself code ?
9 : if I implement the steps to fit/train statistical model on a computer, does that make the model itself code ?
10: if I use krita to draw something, does that make the drawing itself code ?
11 : do you have any experience in tech, do you know how to code, have you ever implemented an ML model yourself, are you familiar with linear alegbra?
1: Yes I would hope the stuff I am going to school for I would know.
2: I simply use "instructions" as it is the simplest way I know of to explain what code is (a set of instructions, rules and guidelines that a computer uses to give an outcome)
3: are all instructions code? Yes and no. For computers pretty much (I wouldn't count the promt as an instruction or code as it is an input into the program)
4: the instructions to solve it analytically? I would say so. If you just put it in and the computer doesn't know what to do with it? No
5: It is data that code can use
6: ditto for last one
7: a way of showing connections between data points.
8: it makes it data that is used by code
9: the model uses the data to train itself, how it trains itself is the code aspect.
10: nope it makes it data but if we go deep enough the computer needs code to understand where to put and color those pixels
11: I have experience with technology yes, I know how to code yes (in the process of learning c++ so still relatively new), I have not and finally I am semi familiar.
Please note that I do not know everything and do not claim to I am simply putting in my personal experience.
where is the code here ?
5 : do you know what back propagation is ?
6 : how is the line ax + b code ? are the estimators themselves code ? or is the process to get to them code ?
8 : correct therefore the model itself is not code
9 : correct therefore the model itself is not code
10: correct therefore the model is not code
11: that's cool, c++ is a really cool language, and I appreciate your humility, it has been extremely frustrating arguing with layman about my area of slight expertise.
LLMs are not not code, they are built around code, to make it easier and faster to train, and run inference on, but the models themselves are just a chain of matrices, affine transformations and non linear activation functions, you can literally do it by hand : https://medium.com/@soudanik/building-a-deep-learning-model-by-hand-bd51feccdfc7
this does not take away from valid criticism of the way LLMs are trained and copy right infringement and all that stuff, you can criticize LLMs for those reasons without arguing from ignorance with people who know their stuff (not talking about you, but others on this sub)
If you put them in that specific tensor structure it will generate you pictures, yeah.
You don't even need to train on the internet, you can just randomise the weights (which would be akin to a smart person who never went under any formal education) and it can still solve problems, including novel problems, just obviously not as well as someone who was educated.
That tensor structure a bunch of data right? Basically a big set of multi dimensional data points they act as a set of instructions do they not? Making them code and if I have misunderstood what the tensor structure does then how do they get the computers to actually use that data? If it's randomly picked how is it randomly picked?
The tensor structure is just a mathematical structure for the numbers that lets them have many-to-many connections, also the numbers must have high cardinality, like one row but billions of columns on an Excel spreadsheet.
Basically you input data asking a question, let's say the capital of France, the model multiplies numbers from different 'columns' together to look up the answer, the information is just encoded across all the numbers somehow, with different combinations of numbers representing different concepts (so one number might be associated with french style things, and one might be associated with political capitals). But it basically doesn't search for any of these numbers, it just goes straight to them, like it's remembering.
We still don't really understand everything about how they do this stuff and it's certainly not us doing it - we understood nothing when ChatGPT launched, all of the above is stuff we figured out in the last three years.
Notably this has implications for the understanding of the human brain, because where memories were stored was a longstanding mystery - if our neural network model is accurate they're now similarly encoded in the electrochemical weights of neurons, spread out across the whole brain, rather than being in a dedicated brain region like the amygdala.
•
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.