4 ms·

You have a misunderstanding of what LLMs are good at.

cap11235 8mo ago
Poster wants it to play Jeopardy, not process text.
paganel 8mo ago
Not sure if you're correct, as the market is betting trillions of dollars on these LLMs, hoping that they'll be close to what the OP had expected to happen in this case.
- raincole 8mo ago
  The market didn't throw trillions of dollars to develop Llama 3 8B. What GP is expected to happen has happened around late 2024 ~ early 2025 when LLM frontends got web search feature. It's old tech now.
  - paganel 8mo ago
    The GP’s point was about LLMs generally, no matter the interface. I agree that this particular model is (relatively speaking) ancient in AI the world, but go back 3 or 4 years and this (pretty complex “reasoning” at almost instant speed) would have seemed taken out of a science-fiction book.
IshKebab 8mo ago
I don't think he does. Larger models are definitely better at not hallucinating. Enough that they are good at answering questions on popular topics. Smaller models, not so much.
kleiba 8mo ago
Care to enlighten me?
- vntok 8mo ago
  Don't ask a small LLM about precise minutiae factual information. Alternatively, ask yourself how plausible it sounds that all the facts in the world could be compressed into 8k parameters while remaining intact and fine-grained. If your answer is that it sounds pretty impossible... well it is.
  - kleiba 7mo ago
    Did you see the part in my original post where it said "Not unexpected for an 8k model"?
    - vntok 7mo ago
      Oh I saw it, you still have a fundamentally flawed comprehension of LLMs. The size of the model does not factor as tiny models can use Internet to fetch factual information. But you think they are accurate repositories of knowledge, even though it's physically impossible unless lossless infinite compression algorithms exist (they don't, can't and won't).
      - kleiba 7mo ago
        I think you're overestimating your ability to assess what others think or comprehend.

Poster wants it to play Jeopardy, not process text.

Not sure if you're correct, as the market is betting trillions of dollars on these LLMs, hoping that they'll be close to what the OP had expected to happen in this case.

raincole 8mo ago
The market didn't throw trillions of dollars to develop Llama 3 8B. What GP is expected to happen has happened around late 2024 ~ early 2025 when LLM frontends got web search feature. It's old tech now.
- paganel 8mo ago
  The GP’s point was about LLMs generally, no matter the interface. I agree that this particular model is (relatively speaking) ancient in AI the world, but go back 3 or 4 years and this (pretty complex “reasoning” at almost instant speed) would have seemed taken out of a science-fiction book.

IshKebab 8mo ago

I don't think he does. Larger models are definitely better at not hallucinating. Enough that they are good at answering questions on popular topics. Smaller models, not so much.

kleiba 8mo ago

Care to enlighten me?

vntok 8mo ago
Don't ask a small LLM about precise minutiae factual information. Alternatively, ask yourself how plausible it sounds that all the facts in the world could be compressed into 8k parameters while remaining intact and fine-grained. If your answer is that it sounds pretty impossible... well it is.
- kleiba 7mo ago
  Did you see the part in my original post where it said "Not unexpected for an 8k model"?
  - vntok 7mo ago
    Oh I saw it, you still have a fundamentally flawed comprehension of LLMs. The size of the model does not factor as tiny models can use Internet to fetch factual information. But you think they are accurate repositories of knowledge, even though it's physically impossible unless lossless infinite compression algorithms exist (they don't, can't and won't).
    - kleiba 7mo ago
      I think you're overestimating your ability to assess what others think or comprehend.