2 ms·
Uh no. You're wrong on all counts. The worst is that LLM's do not "understand" software. If you think they do, you are the one with a bad understanding of them
by gavinhoward 3y ago
Uh no. You're wrong on all counts.
The worst is that LLM's do not "understand" software. If you think they do, you are the one with a bad understanding of them and how they work. So I can stop talking to you.
And any talking about my software is a level relevant to this because we don't know the weights an LLM has.
- Zetice 3y agoIn the context of LLMs, it’s common to say “understood” as an anthropomorphic shortcut to describe the weights on their neural networks. You don’t get this, I understand, but the phrase is perfectly acceptable here. And I absolutely do not need to know the LLMs weights to understand generally how they work. Further, I’ve successfully used them for exactly what you’re claiming they’d fail at, as have literally millions of people. They simply wouldn’t be useful if they worked as you described here.