3 ms·
I know for mass adoption LLMs need to support natural language input. But we've done a reasonably good job (note: source for endless arguments here ;) over th
by nlh 3y ago
I know for mass adoption LLMs need to support natural language input. But we've done a reasonably good job (note: source for endless arguments here ;) over the past ~80 years of developing a very precise system for inputting exactly what we want a system to do in the form of programming languages.
I'm curious whether any of the leading models - LLMs, image generation models, etc. have taken this into consideration. Particularly in more precise I/O domains (image generation comes to mind), it seems like a structured input format where we remove the entire problem space of natural language prompt -> user intent would make things dramatically easier to get the output we want.
- ta988 3y agoWhat LLMs are really good at is guessing from fuzziness which is something formal languages are usually bad at. I can often ask for things I don't know much about in the wrong way and it gets to a response that shows where I was wrong and what may have misled me.
- asim 3y agoAgreed. This is really about defining a command and query language that's much more like the commands in a terminal or a cli. I think the fact that we're moving to this verbose approach is a sort of anti pattern and we'll see levels of abstraction or different methods to reduce it down once again.
- openaikillers 3y ago[dead]
- zzzzzzzza 3y agosounds similar to semantic kernel