99% of humans in a particular specialization, sure. It's the 1% who become experts in that specialization who are able to advance the state of the art. But it's a different 1% for every area of expertise! Add it all up and you get a lot more than 1% of humans contributing to the sum of knowledge.
replyAnd of course, if you don't limit yourself to "advancing the state of the art at the far frontiers of human knowledge" but allow for ordinary people to make everyday contributions in their daily lives, you get even more. Sure, much of this knowledge may not be widespread (it may be locked up within private institutions) but its impact can still be felt throughout the economy.
>99% of humans in a particular specialization, sure. It's the 1% who become experts in that specialization who are able to advance the state of the art
replyHow? By also "synthesizing the data they were trained on" (their experience, education, memories, etc.).
Yes, and the natural extension is that a lot of what people do day to day is not work-driven by intelligence; it is just reusing a known solution to a presented problem in a bespoke manner. However, this is something that AI excels at.
replyThe LLM was trained on 100% of humans, the 99% you’re scoffing at is feeding the LLM answers.
reply100% (or close to it) of material AI trains on was human generated, but that doesn't mean 100% of humans are generating useful material for AI training.
replyLet's train one on just the expert written code and books then, and not the entirety of GitHub or Stack Overflow and such, and see how it fares...
replyYes... maybe not 99%...
reply