3 ms·
It could be non-lossy if it would actually reach out to an encyclopedia. If one takes it as a language engine which translates human language into API calls, a
by qwertox 1y ago
It could be non-lossy if it would actually reach out to an encyclopedia.
If one takes it as a language engine which translates human language into API calls, and API call results to human language, it would appear to be a non-lossy encyclopedia.
It is the basic building block which enables computers to handle natural language.
The simulated intelligence is proof of its capability as a language model, but it is often so dumb that it is doesn't feel like a "knowledge model".
- devmor 1y agoIt annoys me greatly that LLMs are not used primarily for search in this way, but rather search is used to disguise them as something else for the purpose of fooling people into parting with cash. Even the actual search engines aren't using them this way. Google's "AI Overview" is actively harmful to trying to learn anything you aren't already familiar with. RAG is one of the coolest things I've ever used with an LLM, and it would be exponentially more helpful to me in the majority of the AI tools marketed to me than the nonsense they do implement.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> It could be non-lossy if it would actually reach out to an encyclopedia. As the saying goes, “if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a a wagon.” Sure, if you take anything (including an LLM) and add a non-lossy encyclopedia to it, you have a non-lossy encyclopedia plus something else.