3 ms·
> you will be surprised a lot more than if you think of them as humans, so the latter is the better abstraction. I'm not following what you mean here. In what
by mrandish 1y ago
> you will be surprised a lot more than if you think of them as humans, so the latter is the better abstraction.
I'm not following what you mean here. In what ways do you think I'd be surprised?
- stavros 1y agoIn that they can't do math, they don't follow instructions well, they aren't accurate, which are all things that are surprising for machines but very non-surprising for humans.
- mrandish 1y agoOh, I see. I'm already well aware of the many substantial limitations of LLMs and the counter-intuitive nature of these gaps. My comment was pre-assuming a scenario where the chat AI could usefully and correctly answer the question and, even in that case, I want the chat AI to just answer the question and not pretend to have a human-like personality.
- stavros 1y agoYes, but my point is that that's the wrong way to think about it. They don't have a human-like personality that was tacked on, they _are_ more human than machine.