21–30 of 128 posts
Those who know about LLMs are aware that they do not reason, but also know it not very useful to repeat it over and over again and focus on other aspects of research.
Those who don't know about LLMs simply learn to use them in a way that's useful in their life.
One of the things that kinda illustrate this for me, is that an LLM always uses the same time to process a prompt of the same length. No matter how complicated the problem is. Obviously the complexity of the problem is not actually taken into account.
This trope of proclaiming some critical flaw in the functioning of LLMs with the implication that they therefore should not be used is getting boring. LLMs are far from perfect but they can be a very useful tool that, used well, can add significant value in spite of their flaws. Large numbers of people and businesses are extracting huge value from the use of LLMs every single day. Some people are building what will b…
The average person assumes LLMs are intelligent and all this AI thing will end up replacing them. This has created a distorted perception of the tech which has had multiple consequences. It's necessary to change this perception so that it better adjusts with reality.
One of the things that kinda illustrate this for me, is that an LLM always uses the same time to process a prompt of the same length. No matter how complicated the problem is. Obviously the complexity of the problem is not actually taken into account.
One of the things that kinda illustrate this for me, is that an LLM always uses the same time to process a prompt of the same length. No matter how complicated the problem is. Obviously the complexity of the problem is not actually taken into account.
Wait what ? Is that real?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting Humans can't do formal reasoning? Because you can easily teach a four year old not to make illegal moves in chess with very little instructions, and by 10 geniuses like Terence Tao were discussing open math problems with Erdos. If anything this article adds further evidence that whatever the architecture of the human brain it is very different to an LLM architecture.
> Are you suggesting Humans can't do formal reasoning? most of them can't. they actively vote against their own interests and everybody else around them. if you confront them with facts and figures, they ignore it and resort to emotional appeals. just because you can find one child that can play chess at age 4 doesn't mean that the rest won't just eat the pieces and shit on the board.
```
To determine the total number of kiwis Oliver has, we’ll sum up the kiwis he picked on each day:
1. Friday: Oliver picks 44 kiwis.
2. Saturday: He picks 58 kiwis.
3. Sunday: He picks double the number he did on Friday, so 2 × 44 = 88 kiwis.
Adding them up:
44 (Friday) + 58 (Saturday) + 88 (Sunday) = 190 kiwis
The mention of five smaller-than-average kiwis on Sunday doesn’t affect the total count unless specified otherwise.
Answer: 190
```
One of the things that kinda illustrate this for me, is that an LLM always uses the same time to process a prompt of the same length. No matter how complicated the problem is. Obviously the complexity of the problem is not actually taken into account.
Wait what ? Is that real?
It does depend on the context + prompt length but for those the results are pretty static. It's clear to me that an LLM doesn't actually reason. Which is not something it's really been built to do so I'm not sure if it's a bad thing. The problem is more that people expect it to do that. Probably because it sounds so human so they ascribe human-like skills to it.