4 ms·
I don’t know what the guidelines are, but this is not helpful or accurate as a characterization of the interview. If anything, Weatherby is saying exactly what
by dcre 1y ago
I don’t know what the guidelines are, but this is not helpful or accurate as a characterization of the interview. If anything, Weatherby is saying exactly what you say he gets wrong: “LLMs are not the total distribution, but they’re a far larger chunk of it than we’ve ever before been able to see or play with.” I am no anti-LLM guy but this is an embarrassing way to use them.
- nfc 1y agoThank you for your reply, I may have misinterpreted what Weatherby was saying and I admit I did not spend enough time reading it. I've re-skimmed it and think you may be right. With respect to the use of LLMs for my original comment. I think however that this is a useful use for them. It started a conversation on an article that had not comments on it and helped at least one person (me but hopefully others too) to get a better understanding of what was said (thanks to your comment). But it's not a hill I'm willing to die on, specially after already having been wrong once in this thread :)
- mrbungie 1y agoYou can invoke Poe's law just by reading the article (or not as happens with most cases of honest/unintentional Poe's law) and posting something wrong about it. LLMs are not needed for this use case, we can think and spark discussions by ourselves, that's the whole point of a forum.
- baobun 1y agoI find it disrespectful and selfish to expect thousands of people to read and analyze a comment you can't bother to write yourself. You may have been helped in this situation but you've amortized it with great interest amongst all of us.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]