4 ms·

> We’re all operating off personal anecdotes and incomplete information. The difference is I acknowledge that. I'm sorry but I can't assume that your comment c

by ezst 1y ago

> We’re all operating off personal anecdotes and incomplete information. The difference is I acknowledge that. I'm sorry but I can't assume that your comment comes in good faith. You are the one making the exceptional claims here, not me. The burden of the proof falls on you. From my side, I've provided clear use-cases where LLMs are adequate, and large categories of use-cases where they are provably not (misguided usage in those by a number of people is no counter-argument). The extent of your argumentation is annoyingly nihilist "we don't know everything about LLMs, so I'm entitled to believe anything I want". > We can debate usefulness all day, but reducing the opposing view to “you fell for marketing” isn’t critical thinking. The reason why I'm pulling marketing into this is because that's the reason why people generally believe that LLMs are more capable than they really are. Placarding LLMs everywhere and over-selling their abilities is a coordinated effort by a very few immensely rich tech companies. Not by Machine Learning scientists or Computational Neuroscientists who have been mapping this same space for decades. > And yes your reply unfortunately read exactly like ChatGPT would respond Then I suppose it's a compliment, taken as someone whose native language obviously isn't English.

infecto 1y ago
Still struggling to find anything in your wall of words that actually backs up your claims. As I always say—YMMV. On my side, we’ve seen real areas of value from LLMs. Maybe in your field or experience, that value doesn’t exist. Fair enough. But presenting your observations as objective fact is a stretch. Nice chatting, but it’s clear you’re out of productive things to say.
- ezst 1y ago
  > Still struggling to find anything in your wall of words that actually backs up your claims. I mean, one easy thing you could do is to explain how LLMs are adequate as >> thinking machines, search engines, knowledge archives, … How much practical experience do you have with LLMs? Have you even tried running models locally? Then how have you not experienced yourself tweaking few parameters and gotten the same model to say one thing and its opposite just after? Through your extensive use of commercial LLMs, aren't you getting daily occurrences of confabulations? Making stuff up is what defines¹ LLMs, and that's not me saying it. If your field is so inconsequential that reliability and faithfulness of your output has no practical merit or repercussion, I'm glad that you get some entertainment out of this. Still doesn't make it the norm, though. ¹: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05746 https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05746

by ezst 1y ago

infecto 1y ago

Still struggling to find anything in your wall of words that actually backs up your claims. As I always say—YMMV. On my side, we’ve seen real areas of value from LLMs. Maybe in your field or experience, that value doesn’t exist. Fair enough. But presenting your observations as objective fact is a stretch. Nice chatting, but it’s clear you’re out of productive things to say.

ezst 1y ago
> Still struggling to find anything in your wall of words that actually backs up your claims. I mean, one easy thing you could do is to explain how LLMs are adequate as >> thinking machines, search engines, knowledge archives, … How much practical experience do you have with LLMs? Have you even tried running models locally? Then how have you not experienced yourself tweaking few parameters and gotten the same model to say one thing and its opposite just after? Through your extensive use of commercial LLMs, aren't you getting daily occurrences of confabulations? Making stuff up is what defines¹ LLMs, and that's not me saying it. If your field is so inconsequential that reliability and faithfulness of your output has no practical merit or repercussion, I'm glad that you get some entertainment out of this. Still doesn't make it the norm, though. ¹: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05746 https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05746