I do think this provides value. Perhaps not to everyone here, or people who have been working on LLMs for a while. But to people who think they have no ability to grok (pun not intended) LLMs because they don't have the mathematical chops? I think it'll be valuable for them.
Wow, there's really a kink in the wire somewhere between you and I. :)
> I guess I knew I was taking a risk with that comment, but I was thinking more of it being low value; I didn't even consider that it might be taken this way.
> ... I was thinking more of it being low value ...
"It" being my comment; I was taking a risk because my intention with the comment was just a relatively bland observation. A low value _comment_.
Again, no digs about the article whatsoever, at all, 0.000%. You are completely misunderstanding my intention. No hard feelings at all, just want to clarify that for the record. :)
My comment was just a low value, passing observation, basically equivalent to if this article had been written by Sarah Wexler (made up name) and I had said, "Hmm, another person with the initials S.W. explaining LLMs..".
I do think this provides value. Perhaps not to everyone here, or people who have been working on LLMs for a while. But to people who think they have no ability to grok (pun not intended) LLMs because they don't have the mathematical chops? I think it'll be valuable for them.