This technology is still only few years old.
I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
541–550 of 1001 posts
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
> inbuilt into the models of all LLMs is that they'll fabricate a lot. Still the elephant in the room. We need an AI technology that can output "don't know" when appropriate. How's that coming along?
I have seen many people not saying "don't know" when appropriate. If you believe whomever without some double-checking you will have (bad) surprises. To make another parallel: that's why we have automated testing in software (long before LLMs). Because you can't trust without checking.
Some people trust Alex Jones, while the vast majority realize that he just fabricates untruths constantly. Far fewer people realize that LLMs do the same.
People know that computers are deterministic, but most don't realize that determinism and accuracy are orthogonal. Most non-IT people give computers authoritative deference they do not deserve. This has been a huge issue with things like Shot Spotter, facial recognition, etc.
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#543I feel like we'll laugh at posts like this in 5 years. It's not inaccurate in any way, it just misses the wood for the trees. Any new technology is always worse in some ways. Smart phones still have much worse battery life and are harder to type on than Blackberries. But imagine not understanding why people are bullish about Smartphones.
It's 100x easier to see how LLM's change everything. It takes very little vision to see what an advancement they are. I don't understand how you can NOT be bullish about LLM's (whether you happen to like them or not is a different question).
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#544I get so confused on this. I play around, test, and mess with LLMs all the time and they are miraculous. Just amazing, doing things we dreamed about for decades. I mean, I can ask for obscure things with subtle nuance where I misspell words and mess up my question and it figures it out. It talks to me like a person. It generates really cool images. It helps me write code. And just tons of other stuff that astounds me…
Nothing it can do I couldn‘t do myself before: All the information it gives me I could get myself, though admittedly, slower.
I wonder if people that are amazed by LLM lack this information gathering skill.
After all I met plenty of architect and senior level people that just… had zero google and research skills.
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#545I get so confused on this. I play around, test, and mess with LLMs all the time and they are miraculous. Just amazing, doing things we dreamed about for decades. I mean, I can ask for obscure things with subtle nuance where I misspell words and mess up my question and it figures it out. It talks to me like a person. It generates really cool images. It helps me write code. And just tons of other stuff that astounds me…
The problem Sabine tries to communicate is that reality is different from what the cash-heads behind main commercial models are trying to portray. They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition, when in reality, they’ve just optimised prediction algorithms on an unprecedented scale. They are trying to say that they created Intelligence, which is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, but we all know the only real Intelligence they are creating is the collection of information of military or political value.
The technology is indeed amazing and very amusing, but like all the good things in the hands of corporate overlords, it will be slowly turning into profit-milking abomination.
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#546A better model would be good for the stockmarket. The stock market SP500 is shovel town. What would be bad id AI fizzle out and not deliver on hype valuations.
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#547I think many people are just not really good at dealing with "imperfect" tools. Different tools can have different success probability, let's call that probability p here. People typically use tool that have p=100%, or at least very close to it. But LLM is a tool that is far from that, so making use of it takes different approach. Imagine there is an probabilistic oracle that can answer any question with a yes/no wit…
One of the magic things about engineering is that I can make usefulness out of unreliability. Voltage can fluctuate and I can transmit 1s and 0s, lines can fizz, machines can die, and I can reliably send video from one end to the other. Unreliability is something we live in. It is the world. Controlling error, increasing signal over noise, extracting energy from the fluctuations. This is life, man. This is what we ar…
That is deep
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#548I get so confused on this. I play around, test, and mess with LLMs all the time and they are miraculous. Just amazing, doing things we dreamed about for decades. I mean, I can ask for obscure things with subtle nuance where I misspell words and mess up my question and it figures it out. It talks to me like a person. It generates really cool images. It helps me write code. And just tons of other stuff that astounds me…
It's definitely a tech that's here to stay, unlike block chain/nfts But I mirror the confusion why people are still bullish on it. The current valuation for it is because the market thinks that it's able to write code like a senior engineer and have AGI, because that's how they're marketed by the LLM providers. I'm not even certain if they'll be ubiquitous after the venture capital investments are gone and the servic…
Steam Market that is basically an nft store has been going for 10+ years
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#549I think there is a lot of denial going around right now.
The present path of IA is nothing short of revolutionary, a lot of jobs and industries are going to suffer a major upheaval and a lot of people are just living in some wishful thinking moment where it will all go away.
I see people complaining it gives them bad results. Sure it does, so all other parsed information we get. It’s our job to check it ourselves. Still , the amount of time it saves me, even if I have to correct it is huge.
A can give an example that has nothing to do with work. I was searching for the smallest miniATX computer cases that would accept at least 3 HDDs (3.5”). The amount of time LLMs saved me is staggering.
Sure, there was one wrong result in the mix, and sure, I had to double check all the cases myself, but, just not having to go through dozens of cases, find the dimensions, calculate the volume, check the HDDs in difficult to read (and sometimes obtain) pages, saved days of work - yes I had done a similar search completely manually about 5 years ago.
This is a personal example, I also have others at work.
It’s truly revolutionary and it’s just starting.
Re: I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs
#550I get so confused on this. I play around, test, and mess with LLMs all the time and they are miraculous. Just amazing, doing things we dreamed about for decades. I mean, I can ask for obscure things with subtle nuance where I misspell words and mess up my question and it figures it out. It talks to me like a person. It generates really cool images. It helps me write code. And just tons of other stuff that astounds me…
> Wah, it can't write code like a Senior engineer with 20 years of experience! No, that's not my problem with it. My problem with it is that inbuilt into the models of all LLMs is that they'll fabricate a lot. What's worse, people are treating them as authoritative. Sure, sometimes it produces useful code. And often, it'll simply call the "doTheHardPart()" method. I've even caught it literally writing the wrong algor…
> I've even caught it literally writing the wrong algorithm when asked to implement a specific and well known algorithm
Happened to me as well. Wanted it to quickly write an algorithm for standard deviation over a stream of data, which is a text-book algorithm. It did it almost right, but messed up the final formula and the code gave wrong answers. Weird, considering some correct codes exist for that problem in Wikipedia.