Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
writings.stephenwolfram.com
Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
1–10 of 188 posts
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#2Sounds cool.
Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#3Sounds cool. Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
The other day I formatted a sentence out loud in the "it's not just x it's y" structure and immediately felt gross, despite having done it probably a million times in my lifetime. That was an out-of-body feeling.
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#4Sounds cool. Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
If you go back to a random much older post you’ll find emdashes aplenty.
e.g. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2014/07/launching-mathem...
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#5Sounds cool. Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
LLMs use the em-dash excessively but correctly. This post is littered with them in places they don't belong which makes it look decidedly human, as if written by someone who believes that random em-dashes make their writing look more professional, while actually having the opposite effect.
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#6Sounds cool. Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
If there is one person who likes to hear himself talk too much to use AI, it's got to be Stephen Wolfram.
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#7Sounds cool. Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
LLMs use the em-dash excessively but correctly. This post is littered with them in places they don't belong which makes it look decidedly human, as if written by someone who believes that random em-dashes make their writing look more professional, while actually having the opposite effect.
It's Stephen Wolfram, mathematician and computer scientist. This is how he portrays himself https://content.wolfram.com/sites/43/2019/02/07-popcorn-rig1...
Somehow I don't think "trying to make my writing look professional" is very high on the priority list.
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#8I like Mathematica and use it regularly. But I did not see any benefits of using it over python as a tool that Claude Code can use. Every script it produced in wolfram was slower with worse answers than python. Wolfram people are really trying but so far the results are not very good.
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#9I like Mathematica and use it regularly. But I did not see any benefits of using it over python as a tool that Claude Code can use. Every script it produced in wolfram was slower with worse answers than python. Wolfram people are really trying but so far the results are not very good.
What do you think the problem is?
Re: Making Wolfram tech available as a foundation tool for LLM systems
#10Sounds cool. Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
If you really want to know: more than one emmy-dash per paragraph is probably excessive.
> LLMs don’t—and can’t—do everything. What they do is very impressive—and useful. It’s broad. And in many ways it’s human-like. But it’s not precise. And in the end it’s not about deep computation.
This is a mess. What is the flow here? Two abrupt interrupts (and useful) followed by stubby sentences. Yucky.