4 ms·

>> - Image descriptions eg. Be My Eyes: https://www.bemyeyes.com/ https://www.bemyeyes.com/ Not working yet. From the website: Starting today, you can registe

>> - Image descriptions eg. Be My Eyes: https://www.bemyeyes.com/ https://www.bemyeyes.com/ Not working yet. From the website: Starting today, you can register for the waitlist in the Be My Eyes app. >> - Customer service chat triage. More specifically? Which company is currently using LLMs for this purpose? >> - helping students learn- eg khan academy, tutor Lily Helping them learn, but what? Per wikipedia: Statements made in certain mathematics and physics videos have been questioned for their technical accuracy.[43] Sounds like using LLMs will just generate more garbage teaching material. >> - Helping create and debug software. If you don’t think is happening then you’re either living under a rock or just close to believe people are lying about how they’ve used it? Oh, absolutely. People are absolutely lying to themselves. OpenAI's and DeepMind's systematic testing of their code-geneator LLMs make it very clear that those systems produce incorrect code the majority of the time. The best results reported are 28.8% for Codex (in perpetual preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374 https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374) and 29.6% for AlphaCode (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.07814 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.07814 Science, paywalled: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1158 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1158) and the latter is with their special 10@k metric which basically means the LLM gets 10 guesses. I have definitely observed people convince themselves online that CoPilot or ChatGPT even is helping them "improve their productivity" or some such. It is obvious that they are fooling themselves, badly. If you push them, they immediately say "oh yeah, it makes mistakes, but I can correct them" etc. So they just feel like it's useful, even when it's just making them do more work. In fact, that's exactly like homeopathic self-delusions: people use it because it makes them feel better, not because it has any measurable benefit. Btw: >> ... you’re either living under a rock ... Stop being a jerk.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>I have definitely observed people convince themselves online that CoPilot or ChatGPT even is helping them "improve their productivity" or some such. It is obvious that they are fooling themselves, badly. If you push them, they immediately say "oh yeah, it makes mistakes, but I can correct them" etc. So they just feel like it's useful, even when it's just making them do more work. That mistakes can be made doesn't mean time isn't being saved. Everybody makes mistakes as is and first try code isn't typically being pushed human or not. The presence of mistakes means nothing. Frankly, you're the one who comes off delusional here. "Most people are telling me one thing but they can't be right because i believe so so they must be lying to themselves" isn't normal behavior, especially when your biggest argument that they must all be wrong and you right is that the machine makes mistakes. That's very weak. Take a step back and really look at what you're saying.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
padolsey 3y ago
Dude I’m literally—right now— using an LLM to fuel and *build* new features in my production website (ablf.io). I’m just some random eng. I’m sure there are many like me. And I’m not talking about gpt just recommending the odd function. It builds entire modules and writes comprehensive test suites. I’d rate its competency as similar to a junior dev. I guess I’m lying to right? It helps me learn about and write ML and NLP stuff I’m very new to. It’s basically replaced stack overflow for me.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  "Dude", there is no doubt that LLMs can generate code, and there is also no doubt that they can't generate correct code reliably and in fact they are extremely inaccurate. We know this because OpenAI, DeepMind, Salesforce (I kid you not) and others have tested their systems and though the measures of performance they use are arbitrary and designed to make them look better than they are (like the n@k measure which just lets the LLM guess any number of times) they still score very badly. See the results I quote in the above comment. So I have no doubt you are literally, right now, using some LLM to do stuff, I just have no doubt that it is not doing what you think it does. You say you're an engineer? I know that means you write code, but the first thing that's drilled into engineers in training and in work is that you don't just make a thing and call it a day, you make sure to understand the properties of the thing you built and what it can do, and what it can't. Like you don't just put some planks on stilts and say "here's a bridge, come and drive your cars over it". You sit down and do the maths and decide what loads the bridge can take (and you optimally do this before building the bridge). So have you done anything like that? Do you have any way whatsoever to tell how often your system works and how often it shits itself?

famouswaffles 3y ago

>I have definitely observed people convince themselves online that CoPilot or ChatGPT even is helping them "improve their productivity" or some such. It is obvious that they are fooling themselves, badly. If you push them, they immediately say "oh yeah, it makes mistakes, but I can correct them" etc. So they just feel like it's useful, even when it's just making them do more work. That mistakes can be made doesn't mean time isn't being saved. Everybody makes mistakes as is and first try code isn't typically being pushed human or not. The presence of mistakes means nothing. Frankly, you're the one who comes off delusional here. "Most people are telling me one thing but they can't be right because i believe so so they must be lying to themselves" isn't normal behavior, especially when your biggest argument that they must all be wrong and you right is that the machine makes mistakes. That's very weak. Take a step back and really look at what you're saying.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

padolsey 3y ago

Dude I’m literally—right now— using an LLM to fuel and *build* new features in my production website (ablf.io). I’m just some random eng. I’m sure there are many like me. And I’m not talking about gpt just recommending the odd function. It builds entire modules and writes comprehensive test suites. I’d rate its competency as similar to a junior dev. I guess I’m lying to right? It helps me learn about and write ML and NLP stuff I’m very new to. It’s basically replaced stack overflow for me.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
"Dude", there is no doubt that LLMs can generate code, and there is also no doubt that they can't generate correct code reliably and in fact they are extremely inaccurate. We know this because OpenAI, DeepMind, Salesforce (I kid you not) and others have tested their systems and though the measures of performance they use are arbitrary and designed to make them look better than they are (like the n@k measure which just lets the LLM guess any number of times) they still score very badly. See the results I quote in the above comment. So I have no doubt you are literally, right now, using some LLM to do stuff, I just have no doubt that it is not doing what you think it does. You say you're an engineer? I know that means you write code, but the first thing that's drilled into engineers in training and in work is that you don't just make a thing and call it a day, you make sure to understand the properties of the thing you built and what it can do, and what it can't. Like you don't just put some planks on stilts and say "here's a bridge, come and drive your cars over it". You sit down and do the maths and decide what loads the bridge can take (and you optimally do this before building the bridge). So have you done anything like that? Do you have any way whatsoever to tell how often your system works and how often it shits itself?