3 ms·
Exactly. LLMs will sometimes be inaccurate. So are humans. When LLMs are clearly better than humans for specific use cases, we don't need 100% perfection. Aut
by panarky 2y ago
Exactly.
LLMs will sometimes be inaccurate. So are humans. When LLMs are clearly better than humans for specific use cases, we don't need 100% perfection.
Autonomous cars will sometimes cause accidents. So do humans. When AVs are clearly safer than humans for specific driving scenarios, we don't need 100% perfection.
- talldayo 2y ago> When AVs are clearly safer than humans for specific driving scenarios, we don't need 100% perfection. People didn't stop refining the calculator once it was fast enough to beat a human. It's reasonable to expect absolute idempotent perfection from a robot designed to manufacture text.
- wkat4242 2y agoYeah if the computer had been wrong 3 out of 10 times it never would have been a thing.
- kfarr 2y agoNot sure absolute perfection is a concept that can exist in the universe of words.
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoMaybe, down the line. The calculator went through a long period of perfecting until it became as powerful as they are today. It’s only natural LLMs will also take time. And much like calculators moving from stepped drums, to vacuum tubes, to finally transistors, the way we build LLMs are sure to change. Although I’m not quite sure idempotence is something LLMs are capable of.
- anthk 2y agoA Scientific HP calculator from late 80's was powerful enough to cover most of Engineering classes.
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoSure, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t improved. Try calculating 99! on a TI-59. I doubt it can do it, and I know the modern TI-30XIIS can’t do it, but my Numworks can (although doing it twice forces it to clear that section of RAM). The calculator space may be slow to improve, as most non-testing calculations have went to computers, but that doesn’t mean they’re not useful, especially with scripting languages allowing me to convert between whatever units I want or calculate anything easily.
- krapp 2y agoIf we only used LLMs for use cases where they exceed human ability, that would be great. But we don't. We use them to replace human beings in the general case, and many people believe that they exceed human ability in every relevant factor. Yet if human beings failed as often as LLMs do at the tasks for which LLMs are employed, those humans would be fired, sued and probably committed. Yet any arbitrary degree of error can be dismissed in LLMs because "humans do it too." It's weird.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI don't think it's true that modern LLMs are used to replace human beings in the general case, or that any significant number of people believe they exceed human ability in every relevant factor.
- digger495 2y agoLLMs will always have some degree of inaccuracy. FtFY.