3 ms·

Just tried and got the same odd response. Maybe "what is this" or is a common phrase searched for that leads to Google Lens? No matter what, Perplexity is now

Just tried and got the same odd response. Maybe "what is this" or is a common phrase searched for that leads to Google Lens? No matter what, Perplexity is now the worst of the worst. They were early with the ability to upload documents but the utter failure of Perplexity to be useful is proving what I have been saying for a year now, (1) LLMs are not "AI" any more than a spell checker is and (2) LLMs are not really useful for anything other than a VERY good spell checker.

sdenton4 3y ago
I'm not sure why 'perplexity is bad' means 'all LLMs are nearly useless.' Do we use Warwick Davis as the reference height for humans?
- Exoristos 3y ago
  Procrustes salivates.
polynomial 3y ago
While I believe the impact of LLMs is often overstated, I'd like to hear what you really mean that they are not AI any more than spell checker. Arguably an LLM is significantly closer to AI than a spell checker.
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  I don't see LLMs being close to "real" AI at all and Sam Altman also has said he does not see LLMs ever leading to AGI but also says he could be wrong. As to why an LLM is not AI? People are wrongfully "afraid" that an LLM is somehow make "bad" information too easily available to people. Like how to rob a bank or make a bomb. The confusion is in thinking that an LLM can output something that it had not seen in training and supposedly all the training data is available elsewhere. Now, "data leaking" is a serious issue with LLMs but that has nothing to do with "AI". An LLM is a good auto-complete, which is a good spell checker, which is a good search algorithm. I don't see how we ever get from context search and retrieval to "AI".
andybak 3y ago
I thought I was finding LLMs useful but you seem to be so sure of yourself, that I surely must have been mistaken.
todd3834 3y ago
While I understand what you are trying to say with your analogy I think it shows a misunderstanding of how they work. If you meant a very good autocomplete then yes that's exactly what they are. However, predicting the next word in an autocomplete can be naive or rather involved. > not really useful for anything other than a VERY good spell checker. Try GitHub code pilot. Try asking it to summarize something you know nothing about and then tell it that you need the explanation to be more simple several times. How can you compare this to a spell checker?
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  > If you meant a very good autocomplete then yes that's exactly what they are. However, predicting the next word in an autocomplete can be naive or rather involved. People keep trying to apply them as autocompleters... that doesn't mean they're good at it.
seanhunter 3y ago
Serious question: Why do you think asking it what it is constitutes a good test of its capabilities? Do you think (for example) someone asking you what you are would give them enough ability to judge your abilities? Yes you would get the answer right and the models you are choosing are getting the answer wrong, but you can't extrapolate from that to anything else at all about what this model can or can't do.
- brookst 3y ago
  Most people, me included, would probably not give a sufficiently sophisticated answer to “what are you” to satisfy a philosopher who’d spent years examining the question and the body of literature attempting to answer it. It’s a little silly to test a small LLM with a question that at least requires knowledge of its own construction that was not included in its training set, and which really requires existential introspection.

sdenton4 3y ago

I'm not sure why 'perplexity is bad' means 'all LLMs are nearly useless.' Do we use Warwick Davis as the reference height for humans?

Exoristos 3y ago
Procrustes salivates.

polynomial 3y ago

While I believe the impact of LLMs is often overstated, I'd like to hear what you really mean that they are not AI any more than spell checker. Arguably an LLM is significantly closer to AI than a spell checker.

kylebenzle 3y ago
I don't see LLMs being close to "real" AI at all and Sam Altman also has said he does not see LLMs ever leading to AGI but also says he could be wrong. As to why an LLM is not AI? People are wrongfully "afraid" that an LLM is somehow make "bad" information too easily available to people. Like how to rob a bank or make a bomb. The confusion is in thinking that an LLM can output something that it had not seen in training and supposedly all the training data is available elsewhere. Now, "data leaking" is a serious issue with LLMs but that has nothing to do with "AI". An LLM is a good auto-complete, which is a good spell checker, which is a good search algorithm. I don't see how we ever get from context search and retrieval to "AI".

andybak 3y ago

I thought I was finding LLMs useful but you seem to be so sure of yourself, that I surely must have been mistaken.

todd3834 3y ago

While I understand what you are trying to say with your analogy I think it shows a misunderstanding of how they work. If you meant a very good autocomplete then yes that's exactly what they are. However, predicting the next word in an autocomplete can be naive or rather involved. > not really useful for anything other than a VERY good spell checker. Try GitHub code pilot. Try asking it to summarize something you know nothing about and then tell it that you need the explanation to be more simple several times. How can you compare this to a spell checker?

Nullabillity 3y ago
> If you meant a very good autocomplete then yes that's exactly what they are. However, predicting the next word in an autocomplete can be naive or rather involved. People keep trying to apply them as autocompleters... that doesn't mean they're good at it.

seanhunter 3y ago

Serious question: Why do you think asking it what it is constitutes a good test of its capabilities? Do you think (for example) someone asking you what you are would give them enough ability to judge your abilities? Yes you would get the answer right and the models you are choosing are getting the answer wrong, but you can't extrapolate from that to anything else at all about what this model can or can't do.

brookst 3y ago
Most people, me included, would probably not give a sufficiently sophisticated answer to “what are you” to satisfy a philosopher who’d spent years examining the question and the body of literature attempting to answer it. It’s a little silly to test a small LLM with a question that at least requires knowledge of its own construction that was not included in its training set, and which really requires existential introspection.