sdesol

14 ms·

181.
by sdesol 2y ago
> work much better with old, popular languages I think this will improve significantly over time when when hardware becomes cheaper. As long as newer languages can map to older languages (syntax/function wise), we should be able gen
182.
by sdesol 2y ago
> like an upgrade from handsaw to power tools and less like hiring a carpenter. (Which is not what the hype engine will claim). I 100% agree with the not hiring a carpenter part but we need a better way to describe the improvement over j
183.
by sdesol 2y ago
> world where coding costs a subscription I think you are approaching this with the wrong mindset. I see it as I'm paying somebody to type and document for me. If you treat LLMs like a power tool, it is very easy to do a cost benefi
184.
by sdesol 2y ago
> It's not that hard of a problem to solve at the application level. I think it will be easy if you are focused on one or two models from the same family, but I think the complexity comes when you try to get a lot models to act in t
185.
by sdesol 2y ago
Is the instructions to pass something off built into the model or is it clever prompting or a bit of both?
186.
by sdesol 2y ago
To make the long story short, you can manipulate LLM responses (I want this for testing/cost reasons) in my chat app, so it's not safe to trust the LLM generated code. I guess I could make it possible to not execute any modified L
187.
by sdesol 2y ago
I think the easiest and safest is to create a docker image that can execute code and display everything in a iframe and pass data back and forth between the llm client and the execution server. I haven't looked at claude artifacts but
188.
by sdesol 2y ago
I think this will be the future. LLMs will know enough to know that it should hand things off to something else.
189.
by sdesol 2y ago
I am thinking about making it more versatile. I think having a llm that can process wasm code can be extremely handy.
190.
by sdesol 2y ago
I agree and this thread got me thinking about how I can package WASM in my chat app to execute LLM generated code. I think a lot can be achieve today with a well constructed prompt. For example, the prompt can say, if you are asked to perf
191.
by sdesol 2y ago
> It's only folks who have absolutely no idea how LLMs work that find the strawberry thing meaningful. I think it is meaningful in that it highlights how we need to approach things a bit differently. For example, instead of asking
192.
by sdesol 2y ago
I personally think getting LLMs to better deal with numbers will go a long way to making them more useful for different fields. I'm not an accountant, so I don't know how useful it would be. But being able to say, here are some
193.
by sdesol 2y ago
> And then you have problems like "5142352 * 51234" which is trivial problems for any basic calculator, but very hard for a human or a LLM. I think LLMs are getting better (well better trained) on dealing with basic math questi
194.
by sdesol 2y ago
That is why I always go in with a mistrust mindset and why I am building my chat app this way. If accuracy is important and if I am unfamiliar with something, I mainly use LLMs as a compass and rely on them to tell me when another LLM (incl
195.
by sdesol 2y ago
Yeah, it is crazy how confidently LLMs can say something when it has never existed. Having said that, I'm still a HUGE fan of LLMs, as I know it is very unlikely that multiple LLMs will brain fart at the same time. If you know how to
196.
by sdesol 2y ago
> I don’t doubt TikTok is wildly valuable. Is it really that high? I think TikTok is currently in the too valuable to measure state. It can literally be used (and some say it has already been used) to drastically influence politics in o
197.
by sdesol 2y ago
Did your cousin raise $500 million? If not, that might be it. He needs big time investors to get his bid on the media radar.
198.
by sdesol 2y ago
I think it is more of, holy shit, OpenAI is entering this space, and maybe Anthropic as well. What can we compete with: - Name? No - Technology? No because we rely on other LLMs Do we have anything? No. We've taken in a lot of money fr
199.
by sdesol 2y ago
I asked your question across multiple LLMs and had them reviewed by multiple LLMs. DeepSeek Chat said Claude 3.5 Sonnet produced an invalid command. Here is my chat. https://beta.gitsense.com/?chats=197c53ab-86e9-43d3-92dd-
200.
by sdesol 2y ago
> I am finding LLMs far more useful for soft skill topics than engineering type work, simply because of how often it leads me down a path that is eventually a dead end, because of some small detail that was wrong at the very beginning. Y
201.
by sdesol 2y ago
> mistrust of LLMs is going to be a short-lived thing as costs come down and more people use o1 I think the biggest question is, is o1 scalable. I think o1 does well because it is going back and forth hundreds if not thousands of times.
202.
by sdesol 2y ago
Well given the price $15.00 / 1M input tokens and $60.00 / 1M output* tokens, I would hope so. Given the price, I think it is fair to say it is doing a lot of checks in the background.
203.
by sdesol 2y ago
> I think the argument is that the extra value provided is a small enough context window for working with an LLM. I'm not sure moving something that could work as function to a microservice would save much context. If anything, I t
204.
by sdesol 2y ago
> Isn't this essentially making the point of the post above you? Yes. This is why I wrote the chat app, because I mistrust LLMs, but I do find them extremely useful when you approach them with the right mindset. If answering "D
205.
by sdesol 2y ago
> you can speed up development by 10x. If you know what you are doing, then yes. If you are a domain expert and can articulate your thoughts clearly in a prompt, you will most likely see a boost—perhaps two to three times—but ten times i
206.
by sdesol 2y ago
Agreed. If the microservice does not provide any value from being isolated, it is just a function call with extra steps.
207.
by sdesol 2y ago
> On a similar note, has anyone found themselves absolutely not trusting non-code LLM output? I'm working on a LLM chat app that is built around mistrust. The basic idea is that it is unlikely a supermajority of quality LLMs can get
208.
by sdesol 2y ago
Unfortunately you need to be tier 2 to use o1-mini. The only time I really use GPT is to summarize documents and for that, GPT-4o mini works well enough and it is significantly cheaper than other high quality models, so I never really rack
209.
by sdesol 2y ago
I don't disagree that we need to be cautious with LLMs, but I've personally stopped asking GPT-4/GPT-4 mini for technical answers. Sonnet 3.5 and DeepSeek V3 (which is much cheaper but still not as good as Sonnet) are your be
210.
by sdesol 2y ago
> "convert this mov to mp4" Did any of the commands look like the ones in the left window: https://beta.gitsense.com/?chats=12850fe4-ffb1-4618-9215-c13... The left window contains a summary of all the LLMs aske

More ›