3 ms·
> Anthropomorphizing algorithms only serves to impair objective analysis of when they are, or are not, applicable. Actually, in this case, comparing how we as
by unoti 2y ago
> Anthropomorphizing algorithms only serves to impair objective analysis of when they are, or are not, applicable.
Actually, in this case, comparing how we as humans think to how LLM's work is in fact useful. It's hard for us to eyeball a word and say how many consonants are in it, we need to count. I wouldn't ask a human to eyeball a tax return and tell me what the totals are reliably without giving them the tools to add things up. LLM's are the same way.
It's true that anthropomorphizing in general can be a trap, but when working with LLM's it can be a useful guide in pointing the way towards workable solutions.
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago> Actually, in this case, comparing how we as humans think to how LLM's work is in fact useful. Agreed. Contemplating the difference between what people and LLM's are is very useful IMHO. Understanding this is key to making informed decisions as to when LLM's can provide real value. The assertion originally proffered, however, is quite different than your nuanced perspective: > > LLMs are pretty human-like in their mental abilities. It is this to which I object.
- Ironchefpython 2y agoI think it would be more accurate to say that LLMs are pretty human-like in their limitations.