3 ms·

I completely agree that groundbreaking technologies come from an iterative process. However in the case of LLMs I believe we are already at a point where we can

I completely agree that groundbreaking technologies come from an iterative process. However in the case of LLMs I believe we are already at a point where we can judge where the technology is going as its not the first iteration. Sure it will keep getting better and I think that its already a very useful tool. My problem with it is that they are over hyping its capabilities and trying to market it as "it makes developers 55% faster" because it writes the code for them. I think it would be a better approach to market it as a great tool for automating repetitive tasks and a better way to consume documentation.

safety1st 4y ago
How would you respond to the central premise of the article? Which I understood as: * There may not be a lot of differentiation between different LLMs in the long run * Where there is differentiation, is in data (both the data used to train it and the data provided within its context window for a given query) * Ergo marrying search to the LLM, while currently in its infancy, will be a big deal and a big differentiator -- because if you can quickly find the right data to pack into the context window, you will get much better results than what we're seeing today.