3 ms·
Do some people still claim "LLMs are just dumb auto completers"? Because this seems to disprove that claim pretty convincingly?
by fl7305 5mo ago
Do some people still claim "LLMs are just dumb auto completers"?
Because this seems to disprove that claim pretty convincingly?
- huflungdung 5mo ago[dead]
- mystifyingpoi 5mo agoOh, they are. It's just that the harness around it is able to pick up the commands it "autocompletes" and runs them for you. LLM can't run anything, it never could.
- fl7305 5mo agoWhat do you mean that the "harness ran the commands"? It looks to me like the LLM "executed" the logic in pure output tokens, not by using any kind of external tool calls?
- mystifyingpoi 5mo agoRight, I mean that the logic of creating the packet was in the output tokens, sure. But the actual sending of the packet was done by bash command.
- fl7305 5mo agoSure, we agree there. But it seems to me that if the LLM can effectively "execute" the instruction of how to take an input IP packet and generate a response IP packet based on a set or rules, then that's effectively a general purpose processor. And not an "auto completer", right?
- mystifyingpoi 5mo agoThat's one way to look at it, but you're right - taking "autocompletion" to the extreme, we arrived at a task executor.
- fl7305 5mo agoTo me, "autocompletion" means a pure lookup function input->output. That's a lot different from "general purpose processor which can act based on program logic, stored data, and input data".
- AlienRobot 5mo agoIt proves that code, specifically any code in the form of bytes, is, too, language.
- coldcity_again 5mo agoI like that. And if poetry can be defined as succinct use of language (perhaps a dubious assertion), then code can be poetry.