561–570 of 1001 posts
'But you're such a killjoy.'
Yes, it is an evil technology in its current shape. So we should focus on fixing it, instead of making it worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw someone saying 80% of doctors believe that LLM's are trustworthy consultation partners. Code created by LLM's doesnt compile, hallucinated API's.. invalid syntax and completely broken logic, why would you trust it with someones life !
Apologies, but have you noticed that if your entrusted (the "doctor") trusted the unentrustable (the "LLM"), then your entrusted is not trustworthy?
My experience (almost exclusively Claude), has just been so different that I don't know what to say. Some of the examples are the kinds of things I explicitly wouldn't expect LLMs to be particularly good at so I wouldn't use them for, and others, she says that it just doesn't work for her, and that experience is just so different than mine that I don't know how to respond. I think that there are two kinds of people w…
Many people have only tried the free version of ChatGPT, which is a completely different experience than the two most recent sonnet models.
Those people, likely, will never change their opinion.
And that’s fine, because they won’t get the huge benefits that come from spending time learning how to use the tool properly.
I 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 mostly because of how they were initially marketed. In an effort to drive hype 'we' were promised the world. Remember the "leaks" from Google about an engineer trying to get the word out that they had created a sentient intelligence? In reality Bard, let alone whatever early version he was using, is about as sentient as my left asscheek. OpenAI did similar things by focusing to the point of absurdity on 'safety'…
I 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 knowled…
This is your interpretation of what these companies are saying. I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that?
Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? How many things from today when brought back into 2010 would make the person using it make it feel like they're being tricked or pranked? We already take them for granted even thought they've only been around for less than half of a decade.
LLMs aren't a catch all solution to the world's problems; or something that is going to help us in every facet of our lives; or an accelerator for every industry that exists out there. But at no point in history could you talk to your phone about general topics, get information, practice language skills, build an assistant that teaches your kid about the basics of science, use something to accelerate your work in a many different ways etc...
Looking at llms shouldn't be boolean, it shouldn't be between they're the best thing ever invented vs they're useless; but it seems like everyone presents the issue in this manner and Sabine is part of that problem.
I 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know at least two attorneys who use LLMs productively. As with all LLM usage right now, it's a tool and not fit for every purpose. But it has legit uses for some attorney tasks.
I frequently see news stories where attorneys get in trouble for using LLMs, because they cite hallucinated case law (e.g.). If they didn't get caught, that would look the same as using them "productively".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone who doesn't understand this either isn't required to use to utility it provides or has no idea how to prompt it correctly. Almost every counter-criticism of LLMs almost boil down to 1. you're holding it wrong 2. Well, I use it $DAYJOB and it works great for me! (And $DAYJOB is software engineering). I'm glad your wife was able to save 2 hours of work, but forgive me if that doesn't translate to the trillion…
> 1. you're holding it wrong When computers/internet first came about, there were (and still are!) people who would struggle with basic tasks. Without knowing the specific task you are trying to do, its hard to judge whether its a problem with the model or you. I would also say that prompting isn't as simple as made out to be. It is a skill in itself and requires you to be a good communicator. In fact, I would say th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 knowled…
> They push the narrative that they’ve created something akin to human cognition This is your interpretation of what these companies are saying. I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that? Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now? How many things from today when brought back into 2010 would make the person using it make it f…
>I'd love to see if some company specifically anything like that?
1. DeepMind researchers: Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712
2. "GPT-4 is not AGI, but it does exhibit more general intelligence than previous models." - Sam Altman
3. Musk has claimed that AI is on the path to "understanding the universe." His branding of Tesla's self-driving AI as "Full Self-Driving" (FSD) also misleadingly suggests a level of autonomous reasoning that doesn't exist.
4. Meta's AI chief scientist, Yann LeCun, has repeatedly said they are working on giving AI "common sense" and "world models" similar to how humans think.
>Out of the last 100 years how many inventions have been made that could make any human awe like llms do right now?
ELIZA is an early natural language processing computer program developed from 1964 to 1967
ELIZA's creator, Weizenbaum, intended the program as a method to explore communication between humans and machines. He was surprised and shocked that some people, including Weizenbaum's secretary, attributed human-like feelings to the computer program. 60 years ago.
So as you can see, us humans are not too hard to fool with this.
I 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…
I feel like LLMs are the same as the leap from "world before web search" to "world after web search." Yeah, in google, you get crap links for sure, and you have to wade through salesy links and random blogs. But in the pre-web-search world, your options were generally "ask a friend who seems smart" or "go to the library for quite a while," AND BOTH OF THOSE OPTIONS HAD PLENTY OF ISSUES. I found a random part in an ol…
Generic. For the Internet, more complex questions would have been "What are the potential benefits, what the potential risks, what will grow faster" etc. The problem is not the growth but what that growth means. For LLMs, the big clear question is "will they stop just being LLMs, and when will they". Progress is seen, but we seek a revolution.