4 ms·
This was posted before and there were many good criticisms raised in the comments thread. I'd just reiterate two general points of critique: 1. The point of e
by voidhorse 9mo ago
This was posted before and there were many good criticisms raised in the comments thread.
I'd just reiterate two general points of critique:
1. The point of establishing connections between texts is semantic and terms can have vastly different semantic meanings dependent on the sphere of discourse in which they occur. Because of the way LLMs work, the really novel connections probably won't be found by an LLM since the way they function is quite literally to uncover what isn't novel.
2. Part of the point in making these connections is the process that acts on the human being making the connections. Handing it all off to an LLM is no better than blindly trusting authority figures. If you want to use LLMs as generators of possible starting points or things to look at and verify and research yourself, that seems totally fine.
- smakt 9mo agoOne has to be the special kind of stupid that is blinded by efficiency promises from the LLM Church to think the article is any worth. It's the usual jargon soup. Publish a vetted paper with repeatable steps instead of a hyped-up, garbage, supposed 100x productivity bomb. And his best result is mechanical findings from where the LLM got the highest correlations between its vectors: Bravo; there's always going to be a top item in any ordered list, but it doesn't make it automatically interesting. Reading literature is about witnessing the journey the characters take. Reading technical material is about memorizing enough of it. In both cases the material has to go through a brain. I find it idiotic to assign any value to outputs like "Oh King Lear's X is highly correlated to Antigone's Y"
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]