5 ms·
Low-quality is relative. LLMs' low-quality is most people's above-average. The fact the copy - either way - is likely to go through some sort of copy-by-committ
by chiefalchemist 9mo ago
Low-quality is relative. LLMs' low-quality is most people's above-average. The fact the copy - either way - is likely to go through some sort of copy-by-committee process makes the case for LLMs even stronger (i.e., why waste your time). Not always, but quite often.
- LtWorf 9mo agoNo it's not. It's low quality because it's extremely verbose and that wastes time.
- chiefalchemist 9mo agoThat's a function of the prompt. The tool only performs as well as you're able to instruct it.
- LtWorf 9mo agoYou expect people who cannot write to become skilled writers to instruct llms?
- chiefalchemist 9mo agoNo. I'm expecting you not to blame the screwdriver because people decide to use it as a hammer. But to your point, you might not like the slop, but that slop, sadly, is still better than what it would have been otherwise.
- LtWorf 9mo agoIt's just longer, it won't carry more information.
- chiefalchemist 9mo agoThe irony here is great. Perfect. Thank you for proving my point. I can see why you struggle with LLMs.