4 ms·
Pfft more useless text written by a giant pile of atoms. Pointless. Kidding aside, in the current context of human communication etiquette, to even refer to so
by kilgnad 4y ago
Pfft more useless text written by a giant pile of atoms. Pointless.
Kidding aside, in the current context of human communication etiquette, to even refer to something as atoms outside of a demonstration or example is a deliberate dismissive reduction.
- kqr 4y agoI see the current context as something narrower, namely a discussion on the technical underpinnings of LLMs.
- kilgnad 4y agoThe output of LLMs implies a higher level structure. You can't solely discuss the lower level underpinning unless you deliberately do not acknowledge that the output of LLMs are implying something else.
- westoncb 4y agoI think the fact that it's a technical discussion highlights why it's problematic: it might be appropriate for a total outsider who needs some kind of grasp of the basic underlying principle it operates on; but in discussion by a bunch of people with CS backgrounds, calling it merely a statical language generator erases distinction between it and other software of a prior age known not to be world-changing, overlooks recent innovations we don't yet have simple ways of referring to (largely because we don't understand emergent properties of LLMs)