3 ms·
No, LLMs are not an "abstraction" like a compiler is. This is bullshit. LLMs are stochastic token generators. I have NEVER met someone in real life that has pro
by voxl 1y ago
No, LLMs are not an "abstraction" like a compiler is. This is bullshit. LLMs are stochastic token generators. I have NEVER met someone in real life that has produced something I wouldn't throw in the trash using LLMs, and I have had the displeasure of eating cookies baked from an LLM recipe.
No, LLMs will not get better. The singularity bullshit has been active since 2010s. LLMs have consumed the entire fucking Internet and are still useless. Where the fuck is the rest of the data going to come from? All these emails from people wanting high quality data from PhDs only for them to be scammy. People only want to train these things on easily stolen garbage, not quality input, because quality is expensive. Go figure!
This optimistic horeshit hype is embarrassing.
- atleastoptimal 1y ago>No, LLMs will not get better. What makes you so sure of this? They've been getting better like clockwork every few months for the past 5 years.
- otabdeveloper4 1y agoNo they haven't. The hallucinate exactly as much as they did five years ago.
- atleastoptimal 1y agoAbsolutely untrue. Claiming GPT-3 hallucinates as much as o3 over the same token horizon on the same prompts is a silly notion and easily disproven by the dozens of benchmarks. You can code a complete web-app with models now, something far beyond the means of models so long ago.
- otabdeveloper4 1y ago> caveats and weasel words > "benchmarks" Stop drinking the coolaid and making excuses for LLM limitations, and learn to use the tools properly given their limits instead.
- antihero 1y agoThey really don’t though.
- otabdeveloper4 1y agoLarger context lengths are awesome, but they don't fundamentally change the failure modes of LLMs.
- bigstrat2003 1y agoI don't claim that they won't get better, but they certainly haven't gotten better. From the original release of ChatGPT to now, they still suck in the same exact ways.
- johnisgood 1y agoI don't think they have gotten better either (at least in the past 1 year), because I remember how much better ChatGPT or even Claude used to be before. Perhaps they are nerfed now for commercial use, who knows.
- anshumankmr 1y ago> LLMs have consumed the entire fucking Internet and are still useless. They aren't useless. Otherwise, ChatGPT would have died a long time back > Where the fuck is the rest of the data going to come from? Good question. Personally, I think companies will start paying more for high quality data or what is at least perceived as high quality data. I think Reddit and some other social media companies like it are poised to reap the rewards of this. Whether this will be effective in the long run remains to be seen.
- misnome 1y ago> They aren't useless. Otherwise, ChatGPT would have died a long time back Isn’t the entire industry being fuelled by orders of magnitude more VC funding than revenue?
- anshumankmr 1y ago>Isn’t the entire industry being fuelled by orders of magnitude more VC funding than revenue? Because people want to use it, right? And it is a matter of time before they start limiting the ChatGPT "free" or "logged out" accounts, I feel. In the consumer AI chat apps, it is still the dominant brand, at least in my anecdotal experience, and they will basically make the Plus version the one version of the app to definitely use. Plus they are planning on selling it to enterprises, and at least a couple of them are signing up for sure.
- johnisgood 1y agoI think they are already limiting / nerfing "free" vs "logged out" vs "paid" vs "non-commercial".
- arthens 1y agoIsn't that an argument against the sustainability of the LLM business model rather than their usefulness? People use them because they are useful, not because they are VC funded.
- 1y ago