5 ms·
It's easy to dismiss "taste" when you either have none or just fail to appreciate it, but nothing gives you an appreciation for the importance of taste like LLM
by jchw 2mo ago
It's easy to dismiss "taste" when you either have none or just fail to appreciate it, but nothing gives you an appreciation for the importance of taste like LLMs. There is no benchmark for taste, so while many things improve taste does not. Bad taste is, in fact, a huge component of what makes AI slop so sloppy.
But human coders can have bad taste too. There is code where there is nothing obviously objectively wrong, yet the choices feel like they were made by someone who just doesn't value or put emphasis on the right things, yet spends a lot of effort on trivialities. It comes in many forms.
- wonnage 2mo agoThinking the giant array of GPUs has “taste” is exactly the problem
- jchw 2mo agoYou are confusing personification, which is purely a rhetorical device, with anthropomorphization. I am not anthropomorphizing GPUs. There is nothing particularly weird about personifying model weights, as we do with computer programs, cars, and all other manner of inanimate objects every day. To be honest, in this case, I wasn't even personifying them, because I in fact didn't say that an array of GPUs has "taste", or in fact even that model weights did. I was saying I preferred GPT 5.6 Sol's outputs as a matter of taste. I can see why someone would confuse the two statements since in this case they're pretty much the same thing, but if you re-read what I said I was actually more careful than you're giving me credit.