3 ms·
We don't need LLMs to reason or to access meaning for them to be useful
by airstrike 3y ago
We don't need LLMs to reason or to access meaning for them to be useful
- lgessler 3y agoSure, but I don't think even Bender or Marcus would deny their potential for practical utility, right? I think they mean to say that LLMs are not exactly as miraculous as they might seem, and very capable of misbehavior.
- cbb330 3y agoyour mind also conjectures many unreasonable and illogical solutions to things. then separately your mind has an "evaluator" to deduce a set of solutions down to things that make sense. Is anyone saying LLMs in isolation and without contextual tooling are miraculous? Even the text box for chatGPT is a form of wrapping LLM in a UX that is incrementally more miraculous.
- janalsncm 3y agoBender and Marcus don’t get to decide what can be useful for people. LLMs are useful, although their imperfections limit their usefulness. But the bar for usefulness is a lot lower than “perfection”.