While not a large conceptual leap, the real-time generation of "z-vectors" is not cheap in terms of compute or data requirements, the latter of which I see as the main issue. How are you going to generate the vector from a single real-time input?
I still have yet to see anything that dissuades me from agreeing with Yann LeCun when he says Transformers are fundamentally limited. We won't get creativity, reasoning, or even move past hallucinations without a major breakthrough
They do not change it, from what I have seen, o3 is more hype and marketing than a meaningful step towards models which can exhibit real creativity and reasoning as humans perform it (rather than perceive it, which is the root of the hype)
For example, a small child is completely capable of being told "get in the car" and can understand, navigate, open the door, and get in, with incredibly little energy usage (maybe about the amount of a single potato chip/crisp)
Now consider what I have been working on recently (1) evaluating secops tools from both a technical and business perspective (2) prototyping and creating an RFC for the next version of our DX at the org. They are very far from this capability because it involves so many competing incentives, trade offs, and not just the context of the current state of code, but also the history and vision. Crafting that vision is especially beyond what a foundation in transformers can offer. They are in essence an averaging and sequence prediction algorithm
These tools are useful, even provide an ROI, but by no means anywhere close to what I would call intelligent.
Would love to know if you know any other papers like:
Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18654
Maybe the analogy is something with gold mining. We could pretend that the machines that mine gold are actually creating gold. Pretending the entire gold mining sector is instead a discovery of alchemy.
Maybe the way alchemy kind of leads to chemistry is the analogy that applies?
I don't even know if that is right though.
The intelligence is in the training data. The model then is extracting the intelligence.
We can't forget Feynman's ideas here that we aren't going to make a robot cheetah that runs fast. We will make a machine that uses wheels. Viewing things through the lense of a cheetah is a category error.
While I agree completely with you we very well both might be completely and utterly wrong. A category error on what intelligence "is".
How do the o3 results fit in context of this perspective?