upvote
Do you find the results vary based on whether it uses RAG to hit the internet vs the data being in the weights itself? I'm not sure I've really noticed a difference, but I don't often prompt about current events or anything.
reply
I noticed that many recent technologies are not familiar to LLMs because of the knowledge cutoff, and thus might not appear in recommendations even if they better match the request.
reply
Oh thats a good point, yeah.

If I told it I'm shopping for a budget-level Mac, it may not recommend the Neo. I'm sure software only moves faster, too. Especially as more code is 'written' blindly, new stacks may never see adoption

reply
deleted
reply
whats surprising about that? most of the minor version updates from all the labs are post training updates / not changing knowledge cutoff
reply
Thanks for letting me know, I will be waiting for the major update.
reply
It's been like this since GPT 3.5. This is not a limitation and is generally considered a natural outcome of the process.

So there's no major update in the sense that you might be thinking. Most of the time there's not even an announcement when/if training cut offs are updated. It's just another byline.

A 6 month lag seems to be the standard across the frontier models.

reply
I've actually started worrying that the amount of false data produced with LLMs on the public internet might provoke a situation where the knowledge cutoff becomes permanently (and silently) frozen. Like we can't trust data after 2025 because it will poison training data at scale, and models will only cover major events without capturing the finer details.
reply
I agree. That's why you should write as much as you can now, if you want to get it into the LLMs (https://gwern.net/blog/2024/writing-online). You never know when the window will slam shut and LLM training goes 'hermetic' as they focus on 'civilization in a datacenter' where only extremely vetted whitelisted data gets included in the 'seed' and everything is reconstructed from scratch for the training value & safety.
reply