4 ms·
The counter argument is some people are terrible at writing. Millions of people sit at the bottom of any given bell curve. I’d never trust a summery from a cu
by Retric 2y ago
The counter argument is some people are terrible at writing. Millions of people sit at the bottom of any given bell curve.
I’d never trust a summery from a current generation LLM for something as critical as my inbox. Some hypothetical drastically improved future AI, sure.
- petekoomen 2y agoSmarter models aren't going to somehow magically understand what is important to you. If you took a random smart person you'd never met and asked them to summarize your inbox without any further instructions they would do a terrible job too. You'd be surprised at how effective current-gen LLMs are at summarizing text when you explain how to do it in a thoughtful system prompt.
- Retric 2y agoI’m less concerned with understanding what’s important to me than I am the number of errors they make. Better prompts don’t fix the underlying issue here.
- ben_w 2y agoIndeed. With humans, every so often I find myself in a conversation where the other party has a wildly incorrect understanding of what I've said, and it can be impossible to get them out of that zone. Rare, but it happens. With LLMs, much as I like them for breadth of knowledge, it happens most days. That said, with LLMs I can reset the conversation at any point, backtracking to when they were not misunderstanding me — but even that trick doesn't always work, so the net result is the LLM is still worse at understanding me than real humans are.