3 ms·
I think LLMs will continue to improve in the capabilities which they are demonstrably good at, but there are many things which they are not good at which it is
by DiscourseFan 2mo ago
I think LLMs will continue to improve in the capabilities which they are demonstrably good at, but there are many things which they are not good at which it is not cost effective or meaningful to improve, and in these areas we will not consider them “intelligent,” in the same way that we don’t consider computers “intelligent” but do find them very good at doing wrote calculations.
- naasking 2mo ago> but there are many things which they are not good at which it is not cost effective or meaningful to improve Can you name a few such things so I can keep an eye on them in the coming years?
- DiscourseFan 2mo agoNot explicitly, no, but its pretty obvious if you work in the industry and aren't blinded by AGI hype
- naasking 2mo agoThat's just vibes then. How is that supposed to be convincing?
- DiscourseFan 2mo agoUnless you are working for a competing firm or have a specific clause in your contract, you can literally just sign up for AI projects as a contractor and start contributing. You will see and understand everything after a few months. Nobody is hiding this knowledge really.
- naasking 2mo agoI use LLMs regularly for real work. I understand the current limitations, but you're talking about existing limitations that will never be overcome, because they cannot be overcome. I'm just asking for a couple of specific examples, and your evasions are increasingly suspicious.
- DiscourseFan 2mo agoIf you are using them and you are aware of their limitations it’s very different from specifically testing them for training purposes. You’ll get a much clearer picture that way.
- naasking 2mo agoThe continued vagueness suggests this isn't going anywhere, so I'll just conclude by saying that you've given nobody any real reason to believe this.