>When you look at things that way - LLMs start to seem deeply ground-breaking (assuming we work out the confabulation kinks). even if you don't work out the co

>When you look at things that way - LLMs start to seem deeply ground-breaking (assuming we work out the confabulation kinks). even if you don't work out the confabulation kinks, given what was said by the first post, it still seems groundbreaking enough. Although I can't figure out why every time I do anything with LLMs it's not worth it, I guess because I am using it for things I am an expert in, it doesn't help. Actually maybe it's like the article Suggestions from Idiots - https://medium.com/luminasticity/suggestions-from-idiots-6b023acc30ae https://medium.com/luminasticity/suggestions-from-idiots-6b0... - suggesting distracting instead of diverting is not helpful when diverting is the better word in context, but for someone who doesn't know what word to use in the context or uses diverting when it is not the best word the suggestion is useful. If that's the case what he got out of Claude is probably not that great, but it is passable, just like the word distraction instead of diverting in the right context is still passable, or when I get back a time conversion function from CoPilot that fits all but a few edge cases, it's just fine as long as the edge case never hits it, then it sucks - maybe there's some edge cases where his LED diffusers won't work quite as well as they could if written by an expert. Then again it might be that since what he is doing is analog edge cases and tolerance for failure is such that when it does fail it is not as problematic as when a bit of code fails because the computer dealing with the output is not as forgiving as the human eye and brain.