3 ms·
Most people here, unless researchers actually browse HN (unlikely, that would be a dumb move), are equivalent to notepad bleeding edge users in regards to LLMs.
by alganet 2y ago
Most people here, unless researchers actually browse HN (unlikely, that would be a dumb move), are equivalent to notepad bleeding edge users in regards to LLMs.
If you don't train LLMs, you are just an user. I am sorry, that is the reality and it is cruel (for now).
If "prompt engineering" becomes a thing, it means the tech is less impressive than it declares itself to be.
It should be a natural language based interface. I will trust it and learn natural language instead, worst thing that can happen is I learn to communicate better (actually a good thing).
Take it away, leave it. Does it really matter in the context I presented?
- sidrag22 2y agoyou are going straight down from researchers building the LLMs to prompt engineers.. and there is a massive gap in the middle which is what i was speaking about. When i refer to tools that utilize LLMs, im not referring to tools built USING an llm to create it. im referring to tools which will serve a product which itself utilizes the LLM. to use the same past example as simply as possible, computers utilize electricity. in this case LLMs would be the electricity. (this isnt me saying LLMs are as revolutionary as electricity, just trying to make a very clear example)