5 ms·

Technically, LLM can be a parser, if you tell it to output its findings in another data format, as: A parser is a software component that takes input data

by Ygg2 2y ago

Technically, LLM can be a parser, if you tell it to output its findings in another data format, as: A parser is a software component that takes input data (typically text) and builds a data structure

raverbashing 2y ago
That is a very good way of shooting yourself in the foot Now every API call is a "call to an LLM"? How much will that cost? Oh and how are you calling the LLM API in the first place?
- Ygg2 2y ago
  Keep in mind, I consider what's machine-readable to mean, what's only readable by a machine. I.e. a magnetic tape is machine-readable, while JSON is human-readable.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    That's a minority definition. Few of the rest of us would say "JSON isn't machine-readable".
  - javawizard 2y ago
    > I consider what's machine-readable to mean [...] I hate to break it to you but the world has a very different and well agreed-upon definition of what "machine readable" means. You're going to get nowhere if you continue to argue that your definition is the correct one. That ship sailed long ago.
    - Ygg2 2y ago
      Ok. But what is machine-readable, then? Is a picture of my passport machine-readable? Is a PDF machine-readable? How do you classify it? And what happens when ten years in the future once algorithms become more optimized? If an AI can read Shakespeare, and parse its paragraph for verbing a noun, is all human written stuff then machine-readable?
      - iinnPP 2y ago
        The picture of your passport is machine-readable to any machine that can read it. That is not all machines. The significance of JSON, and the submission itself, seems to be in the ubiquity of JSON making it more machine-readable than other formats. You're being too strict with language and definitions.
        Ygg2 2y ago
        > You're being too strict with language and definitions. Yeah, because the stricter the definition, the more useful it is. A "thing" has less informational value than a "yellow jacket" and that has less informational value than "white and yellow jacket, with Adidas logo".
        Ukv 2y ago
        > Yeah, because the stricter the definition, the more useful it is Language is capable of expressing broad and narrow concepts. I don't think it can be said that either is inherently "more useful" - it just depends what you're intending to convey. Moreover I suspect iinnPP may not have meant you're being too strict as in specific, but strict as in rigid and inflexible - seemingly needing to separate everything with a sharp objective binary line rather than being able to consider the context (something that is "big" in one context may not be in another) and varying degrees. > A "thing" has less informational value than a "yellow jacket" and that has less informational value than "white and yellow jacket, with Adidas logo" If the word "flavoste" came to commonly refer to yellow jackets in general, and someone used that word to refer to a yellow jacket, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to call them wrong because the jacket doesn't have an Adidas logo if that's not what the word flavoste is used to mean. If you want a term to refer to things that are only readable by machines, such as to exclude JSON/CSV/XML/etc., something like "binary file" or "non-human-readable format" may be closer.
        Ygg2 2y ago
        > but strict as in rigid and inflexible - seemingly needing to separate everything with a sharp objective binary line rather than being able to consider the context (something that is "big" in one context may not be in another) and varying degrees. Rigid in as I like things to be concise and precise as possible. The more rigid the definition, the fewer things a word can be. > Language is capable of expressing broad and narrow concepts. I don't think it can be said that either is inherently "more useful" - it just depends what you're intending to convey. Sure, language isn't a perfect conveyor of meaning, that's for sure. That said, I try to be concise and precise as possible, and vague, duplicated words just tick me off. Why say machine-readable if you can omit it (since everything appears to be machine-readable nowadays)? Just say something like THE text format on Linux or whatever.
DonHopkins 2y ago
Parsers don't hallucinate.

by Ygg2 2y ago

Technically, LLM can be a parser, if you tell it to output its findings in another data format, as: A parser is a software component that takes input data (typically text) and builds a data structure

raverbashing 2y ago

That is a very good way of shooting yourself in the foot Now every API call is a "call to an LLM"? How much will that cost? Oh and how are you calling the LLM API in the first place?

Ygg2 2y ago
Keep in mind, I consider what's machine-readable to mean, what's only readable by a machine. I.e. a magnetic tape is machine-readable, while JSON is human-readable.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  That's a minority definition. Few of the rest of us would say "JSON isn't machine-readable".
- javawizard 2y ago
  > I consider what's machine-readable to mean [...] I hate to break it to you but the world has a very different and well agreed-upon definition of what "machine readable" means. You're going to get nowhere if you continue to argue that your definition is the correct one. That ship sailed long ago.
  - Ygg2 2y ago
    Ok. But what is machine-readable, then? Is a picture of my passport machine-readable? Is a PDF machine-readable? How do you classify it? And what happens when ten years in the future once algorithms become more optimized? If an AI can read Shakespeare, and parse its paragraph for verbing a noun, is all human written stuff then machine-readable?
    - iinnPP 2y ago
      The picture of your passport is machine-readable to any machine that can read it. That is not all machines. The significance of JSON, and the submission itself, seems to be in the ubiquity of JSON making it more machine-readable than other formats. You're being too strict with language and definitions.
      - Ygg2 2y ago
        > You're being too strict with language and definitions. Yeah, because the stricter the definition, the more useful it is. A "thing" has less informational value than a "yellow jacket" and that has less informational value than "white and yellow jacket, with Adidas logo".
        Ukv 2y ago
        > Yeah, because the stricter the definition, the more useful it is Language is capable of expressing broad and narrow concepts. I don't think it can be said that either is inherently "more useful" - it just depends what you're intending to convey. Moreover I suspect iinnPP may not have meant you're being too strict as in specific, but strict as in rigid and inflexible - seemingly needing to separate everything with a sharp objective binary line rather than being able to consider the context (something that is "big" in one context may not be in another) and varying degrees. > A "thing" has less informational value than a "yellow jacket" and that has less informational value than "white and yellow jacket, with Adidas logo" If the word "flavoste" came to commonly refer to yellow jackets in general, and someone used that word to refer to a yellow jacket, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to call them wrong because the jacket doesn't have an Adidas logo if that's not what the word flavoste is used to mean. If you want a term to refer to things that are only readable by machines, such as to exclude JSON/CSV/XML/etc., something like "binary file" or "non-human-readable format" may be closer.
        Ygg2 2y ago
        > but strict as in rigid and inflexible - seemingly needing to separate everything with a sharp objective binary line rather than being able to consider the context (something that is "big" in one context may not be in another) and varying degrees. Rigid in as I like things to be concise and precise as possible. The more rigid the definition, the fewer things a word can be. > Language is capable of expressing broad and narrow concepts. I don't think it can be said that either is inherently "more useful" - it just depends what you're intending to convey. Sure, language isn't a perfect conveyor of meaning, that's for sure. That said, I try to be concise and precise as possible, and vague, duplicated words just tick me off. Why say machine-readable if you can omit it (since everything appears to be machine-readable nowadays)? Just say something like THE text format on Linux or whatever.

DonHopkins 2y ago

Parsers don't hallucinate.