4 ms·
I know my example is very contrived, I wasn’t trying very hard, just went with the first thing that came to mind. > LLMs are much more versatile and capable of
by corytheboyd 2y ago
I know my example is very contrived, I wasn’t trying very hard, just went with the first thing that came to mind.
> LLMs are much more versatile and capable of performing a wide range of tasks. Yet, at the same time, their capabilities are ill defined.
That’s my point, I want to skip to the part where we know what LLMs are good for, what they are bad for, and just consider them another tool at our disposal. We’re still in the phase of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, and it is exhausting more often than not.
- ColinEberhardt 2y ago> That’s my point, I want to skip to the part where we know what LLMs are good for, what they are bad for, and just consider them another tool at our disposal. Totally agree with that.
- nyarlathotep_ 2y agoWish there was a sober source of discussion around this, alas we're bombarded with "AGI is here" articles from the NYT and "it's so over for programmers" 24/7.
- TZubiri 2y agoMy take is: GOOD: Language parsing. BAD: Information retrieval. We are now seeing the LLM is used to parse the question and retrieve information from elsewhere. Before you would ask the LLM who the president of the US was and the LLM would autocomplete. Now the LLM constructs a query through a tool and searches the internet for an answer. It parsed the entire internet to have enough data to learn about language, but you don't necessarily want to depend on what it learned, other than to parse the syntax of the user.