4 ms·

I think OpenAI and LLM's in general are a victim of their user friendliness. Honestly, when was the last time that we got a new technology that was as user fri

I think OpenAI and LLM's in general are a victim of their user friendliness. Honestly, when was the last time that we got a new technology that was as user friendly as talking to an LLM for the average user? For most users, its magical. It doesn't take marketing for them to start thinking this thing is "reasoning" or "thinking" after just spending a few minutes talking to it. So personally I think the problem is less the marketing (not to downplay that), and how the industry has gravited towards it. And the lack of proper education on what is not. We have to properly educate on what it is not actually doing while at the same time it sure appears to be doing exactly that since it is so good at faking it. This even exists within tech circles, we see some of it here.

Jensson 2y ago
> For most users, its magical. It doesn't take marketing for them to start thinking this thing is "reasoning" or "thinking" after just spending a few minutes talking to it. Even many smart technical people here on HN fell for that.
- andybak 2y ago
  It's even stranger than that. I can go from full awareness of the nature and limitations of LLMs one minute, the treating it like an almost sentient oracle the next. It's constant struggle to remain aware of what it really is under the covers because we're just so used to engaging with language creation entities as if they had minds
  - saalweachter 2y ago
    LLMs are fantastic tools for creating demos that are just absolutely magical, a glimpse of the future. It's only when you need to iterate on quality and go from "amazing" to "correct" that you start seeing how limited they are.
    - andybak 2y ago
      That's a false dichotomy. There's a huge range of applications that fall between "just a demo" and "must be reliably correct". They are just harder to productize for a broad market.
GrantMoyer 2y ago
> Honestly, when was the last time that we got a new technology that was as user friendly as talking to an LLM for the average user? I'm not sure, but the first time may have been around 1967. > For most users, its magical. It doesn't take marketing for them to start thinking this thing is "reasoning" or "thinking" after just spending a few minutes talking to it. People had the same reaction interacting with ELIZA[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
skybrian 2y ago
Yes, I think the basic problem is that it's a wide-open user interface that, along with the hype, invites you to imagine that it can answer any question. That's an extremely broad scope! Compare with an ordinary UI where it's clear that it only does one kind of thing. It doesn't have to refuse to do things when it's obvious that it doesn't do what you want. Something like Copilot or Cody is more clearly a programmer's tool. That's still an extremely broad scope (any programming language? Any domain?) but it's at least less prone to imaginative flights of fancy. Replying with "Sir, this is a Wendy's" is more reasonable when it's clearer up front what you do.
philipov 2y ago
To summarize: LLMs are Turing test cocaine.

Jensson 2y ago

> For most users, its magical. It doesn't take marketing for them to start thinking this thing is "reasoning" or "thinking" after just spending a few minutes talking to it. Even many smart technical people here on HN fell for that.

andybak 2y ago
It's even stranger than that. I can go from full awareness of the nature and limitations of LLMs one minute, the treating it like an almost sentient oracle the next. It's constant struggle to remain aware of what it really is under the covers because we're just so used to engaging with language creation entities as if they had minds
- saalweachter 2y ago
  LLMs are fantastic tools for creating demos that are just absolutely magical, a glimpse of the future. It's only when you need to iterate on quality and go from "amazing" to "correct" that you start seeing how limited they are.
  - andybak 2y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. There's a huge range of applications that fall between "just a demo" and "must be reliably correct". They are just harder to productize for a broad market.

GrantMoyer 2y ago

> Honestly, when was the last time that we got a new technology that was as user friendly as talking to an LLM for the average user? I'm not sure, but the first time may have been around 1967. > For most users, its magical. It doesn't take marketing for them to start thinking this thing is "reasoning" or "thinking" after just spending a few minutes talking to it. People had the same reaction interacting with ELIZA[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

skybrian 2y ago

Yes, I think the basic problem is that it's a wide-open user interface that, along with the hype, invites you to imagine that it can answer any question. That's an extremely broad scope! Compare with an ordinary UI where it's clear that it only does one kind of thing. It doesn't have to refuse to do things when it's obvious that it doesn't do what you want. Something like Copilot or Cody is more clearly a programmer's tool. That's still an extremely broad scope (any programming language? Any domain?) but it's at least less prone to imaginative flights of fancy. Replying with "Sir, this is a Wendy's" is more reasonable when it's clearer up front what you do.

philipov 2y ago

To summarize: LLMs are Turing test cocaine.