Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, and granted much of this could be attributed to the fact that the majority of code in existence is shit, but im convinced that these models are trained and encouraged to produce code that is difficult for humans to work on. Further driving and cementing the usage of then when you inevitably have to come back and fix it.
I don't think they would be able to have an LLM withouth the flaws. The problem is that an LLM cannot make a distinction between sense and nonsense in the logical way. If you train an LLM on a lot of sensible material, it will try to reproduce it by matching training material context and prompt context. The system does not work on the basis of logical principles, but it can sound intelligent. I think LLM producers ca…
> if people correct the LLM, the companies can use the session context + feedback to as training.
it definitely seems that way; just the other day coderabbit was asking me where i found x when when it told me x didn't exist... > LLM interaction with customers might become the real learning phase.
sometimes i wonder why i pay for this if i'm supposed to train this thing...