3 ms·
They’ve built processes around it and don’t feel like/can’t afford to/ don’t know to how change them.
by dcre 1y ago
They’ve built processes around it and don’t feel like/can’t afford to/ don’t know to how change them.
- bee_rider 1y agoI guess we’ll see how that shakes out. Because models are getting much better every couple months, I wonder if getting too attached to a process built around one in particular is a bad idea.
- stavros 1y agoI would agree if Windows 2000 had the exact same APIs as the next version, but it doesn't. LLMs are text in -> text out, and you can drop in a new LLM and replace them without changing anything else. If anything, newer LLMs will just have more capabilities.
- qeternity 1y ago> LLMs are text in -> text out, and you can drop in a new LLM and replace them without changing anything else. If anything, newer LLMs will just have more capabilities. I don't mean to be too pointed here, but it doesn't sound like you have built anything at scale with LLMs. They are absolutely not plug n play from a behavior perspective. Yes, there is API compatibility (text in, text out) but that is not what matters. Even frontier SOTA models have their own quirks and specialties.
- msgodel 1y agoWhen I've built things with them I've mostly considered the quirks defects. Kind of like how httpds will have quirks but those aren't really a good thing and they're kind of plug and play.
- stavros 1y agoWhat kind of quirks have you seen that the next model wasn't better at?
- dcre 1y agoA simple example would be when models get better at following instructions, the frantic and somewhat insane-sounding exhortations required to get the crappier model to do what you want can cause the stronger model to be a bit too literal and inflexible.