> I say that because i find GPT4 extremely useful. Even if GPT4 (in it's hypothetical un-nerfed state some would argue)* is the peak LLM i think we have a ton o

> I say that because i find GPT4 extremely useful. Even if GPT4 (in it's hypothetical un-nerfed state some would argue)* is the peak LLM i think we have a ton of room to grow even within that peak. Yes. sorry my point wasn't well formulated (i'm not an expert either: i've trained LLMs on receipts in 2016, and quickly decided i hated that). I'll try doing it better by dividing the two idea i put in that post: - i think that GPT4 is probably close the peak generalist GPT, meaning that maybe Bard can surpass it (or a chatGPT4.5 or something) but the improvement won't be stellar. - If future improvement won't come from the transformer architecture itself (i absolutely can be wrong on that), it'll come from what we interface with it. Absolutely context windows will probably a great way to have "specialists" transformers, but alos linking it with different "kind" of AI might push it too (i've read a post from Wolfram a while ago that sold me on interlinking different AI models/languages/state machine). I'm sure specialist or even large users haves tons of ideas. I got some value from GPT3.5, enough for me to buy access to GPT4. with a caveat: i'm pretty sure that for work-related questions i lost a bit more time than i "gained" overall. because my mastery of the technologies we use and very specific needs that GPT cannot know. But in the last three weeks or so, i'm pretty sure it was overall a net benefit at work, as i know better when i should use it.