dsf2d

5 ms·

1.
by dsf2d 7mo ago
Its not ever going to get ready. Getting this to a place where it is better than humans continuously is not equivalent to fixing bugs in the context of the production of software used on phones etc. When you are dealing with a dynamic uncon
2.
by dsf2d 7mo ago
Yeah but does it make sense to have invested all this money for this? Lol no. Might be great for you as a consumer who is using these products for free. But expand the picture more.
3.
by dsf2d 7mo ago
Who cares? This is a place where you should be putting forth your own perspective based on your own experience. Not parotting what someone else already wrote.
4.
by dsf2d 7mo ago
Counter intuitively... this is a disaster. We dont need more average stuff - below average output serves as a proxy for one to direct their resources towards producing output of higher-value.
5.
by dsf2d 7mo ago
People haven't really spoken about the obvious token manipulation that will be on the horizon once any model producer has some semblance of lock-in. If you thought Google's degredation of search quality was strategic manipulation,
6.
by dsf2d 7mo ago
To me LLMs are an experiment toward replication of what humans can do. However, they fall short on many dimensions that its just not going to pan out from what I see. The real danger is the future investment needed to explore other architec
7.
by dsf2d 7mo ago
Ive noticed that the subtle/nunance gets lost with every so-called improvement with the models. Im in no way anti-LLMs as I have benefited from them, but I believe the issue that will arise is that their unpredictable nature means that
8.
by dsf2d 7mo ago
I call it a mirage. I get why people are taken aback and fascinated by it. But what the model producers are chasing is a mirage. I wonder when they'll finally accept it?