3 ms·
Yes, I think OP understands that. What he and many others in this thread are trying to understand is what makes this model useful.
by derangedHorse 2mo ago
Yes, I think OP understands that. What he and many others in this thread are trying to understand is what makes this model useful.
- ehnto 2mo agoTurning a voice command into a tool call should be self evidently useful, being able to do that on a small embedded device is the novelty here. In this theoretical example, the thermostat is hosting the model on device and would use no external services.
- tomrod 2mo agoI confused by the dispatch model. Tool calls typically need some reasonability to be deterministic and, more importantly, predictable in response (o/w GIGO). Why would the thermostat need to interpret a voice command that the node capturing the voice command would not interpret instead?
- ehnto 2mo agoThe node capturing the voice command could be the thermostat. From my understanding they are targeting very small devices. So that could be a master home automation node, but why not also a single purpose device? I can think of more bad examples than I can good ones, but maybe I am doing some soldering and I need my soldering iron turned up a bit; my hands are full, so doing that by voice would be useful enough. Something I would never link up to a big AI model or home automation network, but could be useful to control by voice. If it's something that can be burnt directly into a chip and shipped with the products for cheap, maybe that's a more pragmatic way to get AI into small devices (see taalas for a much bigger model doing that, althoug not yet cheap).
- tomrod 2mo agoOh I agree that's not unreasonable. I wonder about the harnessing heft required to make it feasible though. If I say I'd like it a bit warmer, a tool can deterministically bump a few degrees while an LLM might bump it 10C. So do we limit the tool's range?