5 ms·
But ChatGPT would have fixed the issue faster in 45 mins than a human would. /s A high risk situation like this would make the idea of using LLMs for this as n
by rvz 3y ago
But ChatGPT would have fixed the issue faster in 45 mins than a human would. /s
A high risk situation like this would make the idea of using LLMs for this as not an option; before someone puts out a 'use-case' for a LLM to fix this issue.
I'm sorry to preempt the thought of this in advance, but it would not.
- uxp8u61q 3y agoWho are you replying to? Nobody but you talked about chatbots in this thread. Are you talking to yourself?
- bsagdiyev 3y agoNo they're preempting someone coming along and claiming this. Haven't seen it in the replies yet but there's typically one (or a lot in some cases) person(s) claiming ChatGPT will bring Jesus back from the dead sort of thing.
- cwkoss 3y agoThat's an odd nonsequitor strawman you constructed to knock down. Did someone suggest LLMs as the solution or are you just asserting superiority over an imaginary guy?
- rvz 3y agoAs expected it seems many here, even you couldn't figure out what the '/s' means even as I preempted it in advance before anyone comes and tries to claim it anyway. So even putting the '/s' to denote sarcastic intent doesn't work on HN. Can't even take a joke here.