Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 179 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#tasks#task#per#real#functions#don#run#trained#compiler#sub

Discussion (4 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

bobajeff•about 2 hours ago
I like the goal of this. As expected, I don't really understand the math/concept of this. It sounds like it caches some neural network activity and exports it to be run later. So I suppose this can't be used for things like image or video generation.
jsenn•about 3 hours ago
This looks cool, but I wonder how well their trained compiler generalizes to new task families. They trained on 29 specific types of tasks, with 800 sub tasks and many rephrasings of each one (the specs). They hold out some specs for validation, but don’t seem to have held out a full task family and maybe not even full sub tasks?

If the compiler can’t generalize well to unseen tasks then it’s effectively acting as a fancy router to one of 29/800 predefined LoRAs.

mathisfun123•about 2 hours ago
> PAW reframes the foundation model from a per-input problem solver into a tool builder: invoked once per function definition, it produces a small reusable artifact whose subsequent calls per function application are cheap and offline.

Umm you can just get the LLM to spit out real functions instead of fuzzy functions and just run those real functions through real interpreters, which is also "cheap" and "offline".

evw•about 2 hours ago
> Each is the kind of fuzzy task that resists symbolic implementation but does not need an API call to a 30B-parameter model on every input.